Spartacus

Edcam the deaths are not the question, it's the number of new infections and how many people each infected person passes the infection onto. Death comparison at this stage is like comparing elephants to apples as Spain's infection rate is increasing whilst ours (despite a few small pockets) is falling and death from covid occurs a period of time after infection not immediately on contraction. Do you really want to see the air bridge reopened possibly bringing a second wave to our shores with potential to mutate and get even more deadly? Is it that your dislike of the government is so strong that you would want to see more deaths here just as long as it gets a vote of no confidence in the Tory's ? I'm struggling to understand your logic. I really don't think even you are that callous unless of course you are directly affected by the effective closure of Spain to UK tourists, in which case my sympathy is with you for the loss of your holiday which is 1000 times better than the loss of your life

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see there are a few here who have fallen for the > con. What's the nature of this con ? I'm confused or are you a conspiracy theory loo loo who thinks covid was made up 😱

Also deaths tend to lag weeks or months behind increases in infection rates, which is what is happening in Spain. Therefore your inaccurate comparison between deaths (which was lower last week than the number you are quoting) and new infections is not really a comparison. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ shows 258 deaths due to covid between 22nd and 27th July.

With Covid 19 on the rise in Spain, whilst it's not welcome news for anyone booked to go to or currently in Spain, I am finding today's headlines a bit strange including "Holiday Chaos" and "Millions of Summer Holidays ruined" I believe the advice when air corridors were introduced was that travel was at your own risk and the measures could change at short notice. The headlines however don't seem to take into account that there is still a pandemic out there and the change in travel advice has been introduced to hopefully avoid a second wave occurring in the UK. It's almost as if the media have forgotten all those that caught Covid and the pain and suffering families went through and are just focusing on sensational headlines to stir anger and panic.

300 conductors on the new routemasters were terminated in 2016 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36764417 They were employed to run the new fleet and more were supposed to be rolled out as more routemasters were introduced. Fact checked and proven PeckhamPam

This, whilst from Surrey, may help https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/law-cockerel-noise-complaints-what-14067921

Now if only we had bus conductors, that would help cut down fare evasion ... Oh hang on, something else the current mayor got rid off 😱

Eat it

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If you?re not aware of the situation > inherited > > why > > > are you so quick to allocate blame? > > > > > > As I said, provide proof before defending your > > position but the link below is from the current > > mayors first year in office > > > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-and-st > > > atement-of-accounts-2016-17.pdf > > > > I'm no accountant but the finances are shown > from > > page 104 onwards so if someone can work it out > > then good luck although at the time it showed > cash > > in the bank 🤐 > > So in short, you?ve said it?s obviously this > mayor?s fault > > But actually you haven?t a clue Interesting debating style PK You asked for evidence of TfLs finances and I provided their accounts from 2016/17 so that a conclusion could be drawn if the previous mayor left them up s41t creek with out a paddle (as I said I'm not an accountant but from what I read he didn't) As a result you try to debunk my views without providing any evidence to the contrary. But to answer your point, yes in my personal opinion the current mayor has failed to deliver on a number of areas under his remit (not just TfL) and if London was a private company he would have been removed from power by now and replaced. But that's just my view and others have different views. Jules I agree the accounts are out if date but as pointed out above they were there to show where this mayor was a year into his role. I would be interested to see the prediction document showing an operational surplus in 2 years as it was recognised a couple of years ago that revenue from fares were falling yet TfLs predictions were working on income from fares remaining the same at the time. I have also seen that the prediction for fares from the new crossrail line seemed to magically reverse this trend. As always a prediction is only proved right in hindsight which means with creative accounting one could predict anything but until a surplus is actually delivered, it's just that "a prediction" and in the case of crossrail the predicted passenger numbers are in my opinion very questionable. The document below shows (as well as concerns about TfLs financial position and recommendations) how much revenue the Elizabeth line was expected to raise, but with the delays the predicted surplus may well also be delayed. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/tfl_finances_-_final.pdf

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you?re not aware of the situation inherited why > are you so quick to allocate blame? As I said, provide proof before defending your position but the link below is from the current mayors first year in office http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-and-statement-of-accounts-2016-17.pdf I'm no accountant but the finances are shown from page 104 onwards so if someone can work it out then good luck although at the time it showed cash in the bank 🤐

The government support has been reduced agreed, but it was approximately the same amount per year as the fares freeze cost, and as a result the Mayor put more funding into tfl. If he hadn't frozen fares then the phased reduction in government grant wouldn't have made a difference. Prior to covid 19 hitting travel tfl were already in debt due to fares freeze, falling passenger numbers and other factors that the mayor should have addressed. I would like to see your evidence that the current mayor didn't get a balanced set of books. I'm not aware that he did or didn't but as you have raised the question can you provide evidence?

Let's mix it up and have RuPaul present it !

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Despite this, TFL were on track to run a surplus > AND deliver key projects. > > It now looks like the mayor is screwing London but > it's actually the government. How is a ?13 billion debt "on track to run a surplus" ? For context this article was the 12th May, only a month and a half into the reduction in passenger numbers so when the mayor got his bailout it was possibly higher. BBC News - Coronavirus: Transport for London expects to lose ?4bn https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52630386 It's obvious that the Mayor's policies in this area have failed but remember to TFL and the Mayor of London every bailout is important.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Car ownership declines massively post 50/60 in > London (TFL'S own data) > > These sound like Schodinger's old people -a > demographic who are in a small minority being > wheeled out to make convenient points. Funny Post 50 people seem to be able to afford to buy the e-type / classic they desire when they were younger so potentially car ownership over 50 goes up Post 70 and maybe due to poor eyesight and other health issues ownership goes down in my experience

It was imposed by the government only in response to poor financial management by the mayor. Bit like any rescue deal , terms and conditions apply.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The mayor is already responsible for policing and > knife crime though, as well as tfl. > > These are literally 90 per cent of his job remit! As Meatloaf sang "two out of three ain't bad" unless, as in this case, the two have been poorly managed

You are right DR that's why I'm saying the role of mayor and the Assembly should be abolished as all mayors have their vanity projects (or cancel others) and the cost of having a mayor and all the supporting staff can't be justified when the money spent on roles, expenses, property could be used (as an example ) to fight knife crime by the police 😃

Nope But if you look at the cost of renting city hall (?11.1 million a year source : https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/sadiq-khan-proposes-moving-city-hall-to-east-london-to-cut-costs ) and other factors like mayor and assembly members costs (approx ?1.7 million a year source : https://www.london.gov.uk//about-us/governance-and-spending/spending-money-wisely/salaries-expenses-benefits-and-workforce-information) then add expenses and staff costs then the numbers start to stack up quickly. (Sorry I don't have the time to do all the maths but someone can and I bet it's a fair sum) Seems an awful lot of money for a set of middle management between local councils and the government possibly with a lot of job replication between at least two of the organisations and makes sense of why the GLA was disbanded in my mind as that money could be put to better use by funding actual projects 😱

I guess the buck stops with the mayor on this but suspect he will weasel his way out again. Maybe it's time to realise that a mayor of London and all the associated officers / support staff is just another level of bureaucracy and associated costs that could be put to better use by funding projects and not "middle managers"

Southwark council could learn from this https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/july-2020/now-bars-and-restaurants-in-balham-s-bedford-hill-can-go-al-fresco/?utm_source=Wandsworth%20Borough%20Council&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=11704360_July%2024&dm_i=XWH,6YV54,G70J2T,S1RX5,1 It's what is needed, not implementing pet schemes without consultation.

As well as annoying phonespeak, what compacts it is when people have their phone on loudspeaker and hold the phone just in front of their face so everyone can hear the ducking hold music or conversation. It seems to be a habit inherited from shows like the apprentice where they do it so the cameras can hear both sides of the call. The average Joe walking down the street doesn't need to do it... >

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All selling the same stuff as now. > > It had a greater mix of shops I recall but what is > now there is what the residents wanted. Strangely it's not just locals who shop there, a percentage of shoppers come from other parts of the country as the products on sale are better value in Peckham. The change with more bars and nightlife that has been occurring will also have an impact on the day time offering although this is reliant on high streets in general surviving the triple whammy of internet, Covid and local councils

Thanks Andrewc A 20 Year old study which needs a modern rewrite and it doesn't take into account the environmental damage caused by farming battery components and how many miles an old car actually drives per year compared to a brand new one (older cars tend to be classics and are driven less miles per year) Would be interested in seeing a more up to date version.

Rah Won't the extended ULEZ improve the environment ? I can see the glory grabbing now Southwark saying we done good reducing pollution by blocking streets and the mayor saying the same by reducing older polluting vehicles (despite the environmental cost of building new cars being higher than keeping older cars running) It's going to be Glory Road !

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't the danger of introducing one way streets, > by the simple act of removing oncoming traffic it > will encourage faster driving as they won't need > to slow down for other cars ? > > Every silver lining has a cloud ! > > Absolutely correct on both counts. Can help with > traffic flow but with a corresponding increase in > speeds - and the vast majority of drivers on all > those roads I mentioned already exceed the > notional 20mph limit. And the 2021 Grand Prix will include the streets of East Dulwich ! I do wonder that if the council actually removed all the measures implemented over the past decade plus that were added to restrict traffic, if it would flow better thus reducing pollution as there would be less idling and cars would traverse through quicker It's a bit like the experiment where all the traffic lights were switched off. Are we over engineering to make the situation worse not better and adding layers on to try and fix initial mistakes rather than reversing and starting again?