What are you talking about Nevski ? From what i can gather 'This is local London' don't write opinions themselves,so how have they found so many articles in London that slam the TFL ? Is it because so many organisations are p*ssed off with them,by any chance?


Anyway your arguement is not valid.Two of the articles are from The Enfield Independent (a left wing local paper).One is Barnet councils official website,and one comes from a website called This is Hertfordshire.

I don't know about yourself , but i read all the Enfield/haringay local rags every week and this subject has been headline news for a long time .Everyone is up in arms about the TFL and Livingstone totally ignoring every recommendation on the subject after years of debate and investigation.Gavron is angry.Twigg is a angry.The vast majority of residents in the four boroughs affected by this discision are angry.The discision to block proper road improvements (in an area that has seen some of the biggest population rises in recent years,by the way) is a pig headed, defiant, blinked, stance by Livingstone and the TFL.

Are we surprised ???Are we buggery !

errr, perhaps they found so many, because they want to? you use this sort of argument all the time when people quote the BBC and the Guardian/observer. it works both ways.



Alas i don't read the local papers so i cannot comment on what they say.
Gavron might have another agenda....

Have I mentioned that I really, really love Ken?

Sharon is war criminal says Livingstone

Hugh Muir
Friday March 4, 2005
The Guardian

Ken Livingstone has reignited his dispute with Britain's Jewish leaders by launching a provocative attack on the "war criminal" Ariel Sharon.

In a riposte to criticism from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the London mayor accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and said its prime minister should be imprisoned. He also accused Israel of demonising Muslims.

sorry, thats from the guardian. it doesn't count. if they put it in the enfield independent i might believe it.

I think that's the problem, actually. In the US, city governments have control over cities, and the mayor is the figurehead at the top of the flowchart. Here, borough councils have control over chunks of the city, the mayor coordinates sort of, and largely oversees transport. The police seem to operate at the behest of the Home Office (like the Department of Interior in the US, sort of, although I think there's no real equivalent) -- certainly guidelines on anti-social behavior policing for London are coming from the national government rather than the local.

So, then, the only things we have to judge him on are his comments in the press -- which is to say, how he represents London -- and on transport.

I don't think much of the former lately. I wish he'd sober up and shut the hell up, actually. Because why does he want to drive people further apart? Why is he Jew-baiting? And I think I've made my opinions on the latter tiresomely clear.

Now, I will grant you that it appears that at long last some sort of a plan has been put on the table to improve London transport, and I also know that even that is not within his control as, strangely, the national government even has control over that -- how it is financed in particular.

But, I cannot help but think that if London had a mayor who worked well with the national government, represented London well in the press, and had creative ideas to put on the table with the officials who make the bottom line decisions, things might be better around here.

I certainly think it's worth a try.

But I am more than willing to grant you that he is the only person who seems to be able to get through to the union heads, although he still essentially bribes them with ludicrous concessions that we all pay for in the end. So I'm not even wild about that. London needs to stand up to its unions. And it will happen one day. In his own way, Ken is actually protecting the unions from that.



Yes, I saw on that website that he does that two times a year.

I would ask, at a minimum, monthly meetings of the mayor and his council, open to the public, wherein the public can comment in a public forum on issues that affect them -- like transport, disabled accessibility, quality of life, and crime. Twice weekly would be better, because then the meetings would be shorter.

Virtually every mayor in the US does that.




Council taxes are fine with me too, but I think there ought to be more of a relationship between the local press and the borough councils in terms of reporting what's in the local budgets -- how the money is to be spent. I also think there ought to be widely reported, open meetings while the budget is being written and before it is finalised, wherein people like pensioners and those who represent the underprivileged could have their say in a public forum.




I wish I could. But, like I said, lately I work weekends. If you go, let me know what happens. Because it seems like none of this stuff gets reported in the local press, so I'll probably never hear a thing about it otherwise.

I think ken's main problems are.

1. Mistaken belief that he's a major player on the world statesman scene
2. Baaaad press relations - the papers have been saying that he's mental for decades

neither of these are new developments... as someone's already pointed out I think

Yeah, Jon, but he got elected the first time despite all the bad press, which would lead one to believe that the public still see a lot of the bad press for what it is - skewed political vendettas.

hmmm, where have I heard that before...? Does "winter of discontent" mean anything to you at all?

Mata, the kinds of forums you propose don't happen anywhere else in Britain, and many would argue that they would contribute to an even more bloated and unwieldy governmental infrastructure. You've already got an elected mayor, something no other city in Britain has - now you want to be consulted about every single decision your borough makes? You have to remember, you don't even get local referenda in elections here - it's a completely different conceptual approach.


You can call it Jew-baiting, but I find it refreshing whenever anyone in the public eye breaks the conspiracy of silence around Israel. The Israeli state has got away with massive transgressions of civil liberties and human rights abuses, which politicians from other countries are afraid to speak about for fear of being labelled anti-Semites. There's a huge difference between being anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, and Ken understands that. Moreover, he's not afraid to say things that would send more careerist politicians flleeing for the hills, and I admire him for it.

Until more people acknowledge the truth about what's happened in Israel for the past 35 years, real peace in the middle east won't be achieved. Whether Ken's the Mayor of London or in the cabinet doesn't really matter.

Of course, and I understand that. And one comment would not, of course, be Jew baiting. However: embracing a man who has endorsed terrorism against Jewish people, followed by the concentration camp comment, followed by the Sharon comment … it starts to paint a picture that I don't particularly like, actually. And I don't think I'm a zionist for saying so. I wouldn't like it if he hugged an anti-Palestinian extremist and then told a Middle Eastern journalist who asked him how the party was that he reminded him of a Hezbollah terrorist and then said that he was glad Yasser Arafat was dead either, if you get the comparison.

Now would be a very good time for the mayor of a multicultural city like London to try and get people to come together, not to make one segment of the population feel increasingly alienated, in what is beginning to look like an orchestrated campaign. Nor to encourage extremists who share those questionable views by acting as if he's proud of them.

I think he's treading on dangerous ground here.

I wonder if he's got a bit of an alcohol problem? Alot of these comments and actions don't sound like things a sober man would do.

i was amazed by the sharon comment so hot on the heels of the concentration camp ruccus (sp?)...

is there a big picture that i am not seeing here? it doesn't make any sense.

I think it's just defiance. You know what he's like...the term 'pig-headed' must've been invented for him.

not a good trait....

Yeah, but Londoners knew what they were getting when they voted for him, didn't they? He's always been defiant, outspoken and intransigent...it's part of his idiosyncratic - er - charm?

well... its hardly all encompasing for all cultures.... which is what london needs.

Bravo. It's about time people started calling Israel on their abuses. They've gotten away with way too much for way too long. Being discriminated in the past, or even the present, doesn't excuse abusing others. Why shouldn't he say it now?

Perhaps it's hard for those of us outside London to separate Ken, the personality of old with a very particular political history from Ken, the mayor with a specific brief to fulfill for his city...but that's because, like him or loathe him, he's never really pretended to be anything other than what he is. Those are the terms on which he's been twice elected.

If he's cosying up to extremists I can understand why people are pissed off...but the Sharon statement seems pretty much in character. Did anyone really expect him to be any different when they voted for him?

Edit: I'd like to add that i would not put the concentration camp statement into the same category with the other incidents at all. I won't repeat my earlier arguments about that, but to point at it as part of the growing body of evidence of Ken's anti-Semitism is, I think, completely wide of the mark. It was NOT anti-Semitic.

So Mata, you are saying that calling Sharon a war criminal--which he is--is not ok, but hugging a pro-Palestinian "extremist" is bad?

Do you remember exactly what it was that happened in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps?

He has always pretended to be something other that what he is.He is a heavy drinking, militant ,extremist ,anti-Western agitator.He hides being mask of a respectable politican in order to advance his beliefs and ideologies.The fact that that mask has slipped so many times,and that so many times he just manages to squirm out of situations.From his disasterous running of the GLC 20 years ago,to his ham fisted time in office as Mayor,AND STILL he seems to be getting away with it.Red Ken???It should be Teflon Ken,because nothing seems to stick.

The truth is, a lot of the general public are still conned into thinking that he is just a left wing liberal.The intelligent,influencial and academic Lefties in London all know what Ken is really about,but they keep quite and find it a big wheez that such a radical extreme figure is parading about as Mayor of London.Before Ken became Mayor, Tony Blair said that if Ken did become Mayor it would be ''dangerous and bad for Londerners''.But as Blair would rather see a Labour Mayor than a good one,he accepted Ken back in the Labour party when his victory looked inevitable and has bit his lip ever since.

I was pretty suprised when I found out there is such a lack of municiple home rule in England.

The role of mayor in the US varies somewhat. In some citys, like Chicago, the mayor is more than the figurehead, he is the executive. In cities operating under the "council-manager" form of municiple government, the mayor may just be a title, and power is really vested in the city commission and the city manager (and that varies as well, depending on the type of council-manager government).

In almost all cases the cities have alot of control over local affairs. Transport, though, often is run by local (in some cases regional) authorities independent of city government, where municipalities appoint members to the board of the transit authority.

Roads are usually a hierachial thing..with the Feds, the State, County, and City all playing a role. It seems the various state departments of transportation are key to road policy, though.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-30.htm

kEN LIVINGSTON IS NOT AN ANTI SEMIITE! As one (and maybe the only one who posts on this forum with any ties to a Jewsih Community, I am offended by the insinuation.
Israel has used the "anti semite" card to silence anyone who questions their policies. Let me say that I, while not Jewish by birth, do belong to a synagogue, and many American Jews are not happy with the Sharon Government and its policies. They are concerned about Israel's survival but many are caling for a Palestine State. I differ with may of my friends in the Progressive,Liberal/ left (whatever the word of the week is) regarding Arafit. I beleive Arafit was first and formeost a politican, who promoted himself, rather than the struggle with his people. There are reports of billins of funds that have disappeareed while many Palestine communiteis have no running water or sewege systems. He was in a position to do something that, He ignored it and simply perputating a state of war.
I am diisappointed that people like Livingston do not address these issues. But that is not anti semitism.

James you're not the only person here with ties to the Jewish community. Just wait till Pete sees that comment!

Than I stand corrected
Anyhow Ken Livingston is getting a bad rap

I dont really understand the phrase 'conspiracy of silence' re Israel. Israel is routinely criticized in the media eg papers like the Guardian and Independent,by politicians eg Galloway and Livingstone to name but 2,on line (many many websites criticize Israel),by Arab leaders etc etc ---- - This is particularly true since the outbreak of the 2nd Intifada 5 years back now.But it goes much further back than that as well. So I find the use of that phrase bizarre.I find Ken Livingstone's timing re his comments in the Guardian bizarre as well. Hes said these things before about Sharon (as have many others) so why pick such a sensitive moment (off the back of the Finegold thing) to say them again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4757065.stm

Lobster cards to be valid at all zone 1 - 6 mainline stations.

Aother nail in the coffin of 'choice' .

You either use the form of transport we want you to use,or we will punish you.You either use our method of payment on that form of transport transport or we will punish.Livingstone is a control freak.He knows best, and everyone must do as he says or be punished accordingy.

klf, what the fuck are you on about? you got another mode of transport i can use in london? my magic carpet is in the shop...

If you try to use a car as transport,Ken will artificially hinder its progress as much as he can.Bus lanes ,traffic calming, congestion charging...etc. Then when you are finally blackmailed onto public transport,you must use HIS oyster card that he says you must use, or pay a hell of a lot more in cash to travel around.He's artificially limiting choice and forcing people to travel and to pay,as HE see's fit.

well in new york you use a metrocard or your feet. how many fucking ways do you need to pay for public transport?

KLF, i think that allowing oyster cards to be used on ALL MAINLINE routes through london, offers more choice, you dickwad.

No.Its saying : You must use MY Oyster card ,and to make sure you do ,we are going to make paying by cash/weekly/or monthly more expensive.Its restriction of choice by manipulation/blackmail.

Of course, if you've already been forced to have a oyster card,then increasing the stations it can be used in ,is good news obviously.

i'd love to use ken's oyster card, i bet he keeps lots of cash on his...

OK, you are really off your head. On Oystercard is like a Metrocard in NYC. If you don't want one, don't buy one. Just pay your fare as you travel. Got that?

But the standard fare shouldn't be made artificially and significantly dearer than a travel scheme, in order to force people to use someones 'hobby-horse' of a travel card.That is restricting choice of payment and at worst, is plain facsism.

In NYC and in Boston, the mertrocard thingies are available from machines. You can pay with cash or a credit/debit card, and load them up as much or as little as you want. It's cheaper for the transit authorities because they don't have to pay as much staff to man ticket booths, and the machines are available round the clock. You can pay by the trip leg or get passes good for unlimited trips for a certain number of days. I love 'em.

I'm all for some good fun with hyperbole, but "fascism"?! Nah.

It's like that in DC too.

I kinda miss the little tokens (I still have one) but I agree with the KLF this time. Convenience is facism.


I'm going back to bed.

what a twat

how exactly is it limiting choice. it's a method of payment - plastic cash - it's that simple

in another thread you get all excited over progress - here you are a luddite

bizarre

you have to use the metrocard in new york, we're done with tokens, there is no other alternative.

He's limiting choice of transport by artificially making things more difficult and more expensive for motorists (whilst flooding our roads with extrordinary high volumes of buses),and then when he's limited our choice of which transport to use .He then insists on limiting choice of how to pay to use that transport, by artifically raising cash prices,making his hobby-horse of a card scheme the only viable option to be able to travel at non-extortionate prices.So by my book, he is limiting choice of transport and choice of payment method.IS HE NOT????

he's not.

dude, you have a seriously fucked up view on things.

The stupidity of your post stands by itself, and I'm not going to engage you any more. Extraordinarily high volumes of buses. What planet are you on? Viva Ken.

Do you think that kind of hyperbole...
a) Helps convince people of your point, or
b ) Makes people think you're a bit of a crank?

Do you think Mussolini used Oystercards to make the trains run on time?

It makes me think the latter. In fact, I think KLF is simply one of those people who needs to be constantly unhappy about something, anything.

Ken has increased the amount of buses on the roads of London by between 23-39% (depending on what survey you look at) since he became mayor and promises to keep increasing this amount by at least 5% every year.A significant percentage of this large rise,has come from bendy-buses with take up twice the road space of previous buses.I would suggest that actual road space taken up by buses in london since Livingstone came to power in 2001 has increased by at least 40%.Now you Lefties may well agree with his policies,but you can't deny that he has 'flooded' London streets with a massive increase in buses in a very short space of time.Can you???

I would also like to see figures for the increase in bus lanes during his 5 years in charge.What percentage of roads are now halved in size to the majority of transport?At best ,Ken has created a restricted road transport network,in order to force people onto buses.At worst, it is downright blackmail of the genral public, in order that he can satisfy his long-standing, rabid ,anti-car ideology.

Who said 15 years ago that: 'I hate cars, if i was in charge,i'd ban the bloody lot of 'em'

Who sanctioned the appointment of the former owner and leader of the anachist website 'reclaim the streets', as one of TFL's most senior executives.

I think most sane people have got Kens number

I wish Ken would do the same in Birmingham or the west midland conurbation.

We keep being urged to use public transport even though here in the W. Mids it is, like everywhere else in the country apart from London, utter shite.

See photo above:

i just wish i was as rich as klf to afford a car, insurance and gas so i could haul my lazy ass around town when ever i wanted.

Us rich car users are more than happy to pays billions into the treasury each year. We are more than happy to fund your public transport out of our taxes.We are more than happy for buses to use the roads that we have brought and paid for out of our road taxes.We are more than happy to keep the car industry and our economy alive by buying cars and filling them with (80% tax) petrol.[The economy would collapse with weeks, without us doing so].

All we ask,is that people stop calling the people who fund their lifestyles and public transport selfish,and give us equal use of the public highways and equal consideration in transport and road policy.It not too much to ask is it?

Yes and you are happy to pollute our towns and cities, adding to repiratory illness, not to mention your contribution to global warming.

My heart bleeds for you.

What do buses and Trains run on????

Any number of things - but the point is they pollute proportionally less than individuals in cars.