Congestion charges are EXCELLENT! Personally I think it's ridiculous driving in central London, and would be completely unnecessary if public transport was better. People should be discouraged to drive, and should be forced to pay through their noses if they still choose to. I want drivers themselves to pay for traffic police, ambulences to clean up after another accident etc. I take the bus through central London every day, and have done since I can remember. Apart from when I was cycling, and this has only been possible due to the cycle lanes which Ken implemented. Traffic speed has certainly improved since the congestion charge came in. Its unfortunate you got hit by a bendy bus, but I'm sure it was the driver's fault not the bus'. They're definitely much safer than the old Routemaster ones. Plus they used to stink. Plus there was nowhere near enough leg room. My friend was a bus conductor and he fell off the back and broke both his legs. They were just there to please tourists. And lo! Boris wants to bring them back.

Ken used to be my MP before becoming mayor and he was excellent. I must admit I am a bit of an old-fashioned lefty, and there are VERY few of them left in mainstream politics. I would prefer Tony Benn but he's a bit past it. Ken isn't going to follow New Labour's every whim, this was why they didn't allow him to stand for them in the first election. Boris will just pander to David Cameron's beck and call, and when the Tories inevitably get into power at the next election, it would be nice to have at least SOME opposition to them who's voice has some weight. With Cameron AND Boris in power anything could happen (and it probably will).

Ken is by no means perfect, in fact he leaves a lot to be desired in MANY respects. But Boris can be summed up by these two videos. The first one is ridiculous but the second shows he really does have a terribly nasty side which he hides from public view well with his 'Who, me?' persona.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcgrZs4GXv4&feature=related

(ignore the sound messing up at the beginning, it comes back quickly).

First things first - make public transport viable.

That is the right way.

Currently if there WAS any move to public transport, it simply could not cope with the numbers.

I agree with Yaqub's sentiments above - EXCEPT £8.00 fare to enter the congestion charge zone is beyond ridiculous - it doesnt affect the comfortably well-off, but the ordinary workers, smaller businesses, market traders etc - these are the people who are hardest hit - and who are confronted with the option of a cut in income, closing up shop/business or travelling non-peak hours. Doesnt this go against good old socialist/old-school Labour values that I thought Ken valued??

The bendy buses are another sore point for me - people pop on and off too easily without paying - and conductors rarely turn up to check tickets - I read recently that the fare evasion rate is almost 3 times as that of the conventional double deckers! Late at night you end up with foul-smelling drunkards using the bus as a warm place to nap or intimidating youths who use it as a social hangout. :@@

You wrote:

(don't know about the others. Oyster card?)

[url=http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/oysteronline/2732.aspx]Oyster Card[/url]

I think congestion charge was a good idea, even though I might have got fined once for accidentally entering the zone a few mins before 6:30pm.

Amal wrote:

I agree with Yaqub's sentiments above - EXCEPT £8.00 fare to enter the congestion charge zone is beyond ridiculous - it doesnt affect the comfortably well-off, but the ordinary workers, smaller businesses, market traders etc - these are the people who are hardest hit - and who are confronted with the option of a cut in income, closing up shop/business or travelling non-peak hours. Doesnt this go against good old socialist/old-school Labour values that I thought Ken valued??

The bendy buses are another sore point for me - people pop on and off too easily without paying - and conductors rarely turn up to check tickets - I read recently that the fare evasion rate is almost 3 times as that of the conventional double deckers! Late at night you end up with foul-smelling drunkards using the bus as a warm place to nap or intimidating youths who use it as a social hangout. :@@

And we should maybe lobby for subsidies for small business who need vans to drive in central london. I can only imagine that this type of thing would be more likely to happen under Ken than Boris. I have a friend who uses a large people carrier for his business (he uses like a van) but it is exempt from paying the congestion charge because it is a hybrid vehicle (another good thing).

And I agree there should be more ticket inspectors on bendies. but many of the intimidating youths are on double deckers too and also get free travel under 16 or under 18 if they are still in education (which I think is an excellent thing indeed).

Ya'qub wrote:

And I agree there should be more ticket inspectors on bendies. but many of the intimidating youths are on double deckers too and also get free travel under 16 or under 18 if they are still in education [b](which I think is an excellent thing indeed).[/b]

I disagree.

School-children shouldn't get free travel just like that. They should be rewarded with free travel, and it can be from doing simple things like behaving sensibly. They are causing problems in buses esp. and bus drivers are witnesses to that. They are noisy, rude, say the f word every 5 second and cause inconvenience to others who are paying to travel. Some of them are violent, and I've seen play-fighting turning into something serious. Kick them out I say! (well... not all of them.)

I VOTE MATT O'CONNER WHO WANTS TO CHANGE THIS COUNTRY OUT ALL OF THEM MATT DOES HE FIGHTS FOR JUSTICE IN FAMILY COURTS HE WANTS JUSTICE FOR ENGLAND GO ON MATT YOU CAN DO IT I SUPPORT YOU 1000%

Anything in particular he wants to change? something the "voters" should be aware of?

Quote:

[b]Give second vote to Johnson, BNP tells supporters[/b]

The British National party has called on its supporters to give their second-preference votes in the London mayoral election to the Conservative candidate, Boris Johnson.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/02/london08.london

While it is important to mention that Boris Johnson has said he has no desire to be supported by ANY B.N.P. voters, I think the fact that the Green Party have told there supporters to give Ken Livingstone their second vote just about tells us all we need to know.

Ya'qub, you spend too much time in the company of lawyers. My problem with your attacks on Johnson is that they are smears and as an intelligent guy and a religious person you must recognise them as dishonesty and a perpetual drip of defamation. I am serious, so if you have a serious response I would like to hear it.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Ya'qub, you spend too much time in the company of lawyers. My problem with your attacks on Johnson is that they are smears and as an intelligent guy and a religious person you must recognise them as dishonesty and a perpetual drip of defamation. I am serious, so if you have a serious response I would like to hear it.

I don't think I've been particularly dishonest. Subective maybe, and I've been 'spinning' certain things. But not in a defammatory sort of way (I think).

The fact is, a good friend of his (and convicted fraudster) phoned him up asking for the address of a journalist so he could be 'sorted out'. Boris failed to provide the address, but it is important to realise that this was not because he objected to beating up a journalist, rather he was too incompetant to be able to do so. For me, this is an important thing to take into account when voting for the person to be in charge of the City of London.

While I specifically mentioned that he did not support the BNP's endorsement of him (and the endorsement wasn't exactly ringing), but as someone who believes, [i]'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'[/i], not, [i]'From each according to how exploited he is, to each according to his greed' [/i]so I feel it is my duty to support Livingstone, even though he certainly is no saint either.

Anyway, why are you backing Boris? You haven't stated your reasons. Who knows, I may come round to the guy.

Ya'qub wrote:

I don't think I've been particularly dishonest. Subective maybe, and I've been 'spinning' certain things. But not in a defammatory sort of way (I think).

Come off it. Reading through your posts it's like you're trying to be Alistair Campbell to Ken's Tony Blair.

Boris is intuitive and affable and he isn't Ken Livingstone. He clearly isn't a racist or a thug either despite your persistent implication. I told you why I don't like Ken Livingstone - he wastes a lot of money on self-promotion, made life very difficult for me and other young drivers and attaches his name to anything good about London. It isn't good management and I honestly feel ill at the sight of him. Not to mention his dogged refusal to admit a simple error of judgement calling that Jewish reporter a concentration camp guard and telling two Iranian jews who got his back up that they could try their luck back home if they weren't happy. I think he's a vile man.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Boris is intuitive and affable and he isn't Ken Livingstone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like, apart from being a likeable fellow (which I agree he is), Boris' main selling point is he is different from Ken Livingstone.

For me, there should be more, maybe at least ONE concrete policy (other that saying he'll bring back the Routemaster buses) rather than just general statements that sound nice but aren't backed up by anything definite.

My main concern is not that he'll get in, TBH I doubt there is very much between either of them, because their power is not huge. Rather, I think that if he wins then the Tories will get a landslide at the General Election, and then we'd be buggered. I think they'll get in anyway, but if they only have a small minority it won't be quite so bad.

OK, for a bit of balance, I have just read two conflicting comment pieces, whihc may or may not have anything to do with your personal 'hatred' of Ken Livingstone (second one is a left-wing response to the right-wing first one).

[url=http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/geoffrey_alderman/2008/04/an_old_enm... Alderman[/url]

[url=http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/anthony_isaacs/2008/04/not_in_my_nam... Isaacs[/url]

IMO statements like "There were many reasons why these Jews so warmed to Thatcherism; her destruction of the Livingstone-led GLC was one of them." do not you case help.

It doesn't seem he's making a case to convert you, it's a factual piece concerning where he feels the Jewish vote should go, and the context copiously explains his problems with the GLC. Don't see how it helps or hinders "his case", except to a Livingstone wierdo fanatic.

OK, I have realised that you have no real reason for supporting Boris, other than a personal hatred because he supports Palestinian causes. You have no argument [b]for[/b] Boris, save that 'he is not Ken'.

So you have reduced youself to making personal remarks about me, calling me 'dishonest', 'passive-aggressive', a 'weirdo fanatic' and, worst of all, 'Alaister Campbell'!

I think this 'discussion' has run its course, it not like either of us is going to achieve anything.

If anything, I think the title of the topic should be changed to 'London Mayor: Who's the least-worst candidate?'

Ya'qub wrote:

OK, I have realised that you have no real reason for supporting Boris, other than a personal hatred because he supports Palestinian causes. You have no argument [b]for[/b] Boris, save that 'he is not Ken'.

So you have reduced youself to making personal remarks about me, calling me 'dishonest', 'passive-aggressive', a 'weirdo fanatic' and, worst of all, 'Alaister Campbell'!

I think this 'discussion' has run its course, it not like either of us is going to achieve anything.

If anything, I think the title of the topic should be changed to 'London Mayor: Who's the least-worst candidate?'

You're ranting. I apologise for "wierdo" and "Campbell", but not for saying your arguments seem uncharacteristically disingenuous, or else passive-aggressive. Ken has eaten up a great deal of my money and I've personally experienced his mismangement at work, and I gave my other personal reasons for disliking Ken Livingstone. Linking another view and pushing it on me, much like bringing up the BNP in the same breath as Johnson, is right stinking behaviour on your part. I don't think you have supported any of your smears concerning Johnson, and my honest reasons for supporting him, not fanatically but quite casually (I am not even in London most of the time these days), are very simply as I said, that I am sick of the sight of Ken and I like Johnson's personality, and having read his columns for several years I have generally been impressed. I can also say categorically, having read as I say many of his columns, that he is a thoroughly centrist Conservative and not remotely racist, despite how Labour might love to collapse traditionalist conservatives with the far-right. I personally think you aren't giving any time to my point, which is that you can promote Ken without being so pushy and without resorting to smears, else I could regurgitate several recent sensationalist points concerning Livingstone that don't require a hint of smear. But I think it a thoroughly dishonest way to assess his candidacy or to advocate anything in particular.

Courage wrote:

Hang on, Joie! I think Yaqub made it blatantly clear that Ken ain't perfect. He's human and he's made mistakes. fair enough, but Boris actually did some pretty stupid tings too, like help someone to beat another person up (yes this is true) and didn't even call the police. Boris seems to be echoing exactly what Ken stands for. I definately think Ken is a better leader. Sorry, Joie.

That doesn't address my point in the slightest, and as it happens Johnson didn't help beat anyone up, he fumbled finding the address of his friend's would-be victim. As I said, it is beyond facile to launch a heavy smear job against Livingstone and I'm not into doing that.

MuslimBro wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

And I agree there should be more ticket inspectors on bendies. but many of the intimidating youths are on double deckers too and also get free travel under 16 or under 18 if they are still in education [b](which I think is an excellent thing indeed).[/b]

I disagree.

School-children shouldn't get free travel just like that. They should be rewarded with free travel, and it can be from doing simple things like behaving sensibly. They are causing problems in buses esp. and bus drivers are witnesses to that. They are noisy, rude, say the f word every 5 second and cause inconvenience to others who are paying to travel. Some of them are violent, and I've seen play-fighting turning into something serious. Kick them out I say! (well... not all of them.)

'They are causing problems in buses esp. and bus drivers are witnesses to that. They are noisy, rude, say the f word every 5 second and cause inconvenience to others who are paying to travel.' - not necessarily... and you don't need to be a student to do those things...
That's a harsh (rude?) generalisation and adding '(well... not all of them.)' as an afterthought, doesn't really justify it...

"kick them out"? ...of the buses?!

bendy buses are great cos they are, most of the time, completely free to travel on!

i take the 207 (aka the 'free'07) all the time in london, saves loads of dosh. just hv to look out for the inspectors.

they aren't unsafe either, thats a myth. if people are silly enough to stand right on the edge of the kerb while a huge, great red thing is moving (slowly) towards them then more fool them.

im voting ken

I watched the Newsnight debate on the BBC website yesterday...

The Lib Dem (Paddick?) guy came across as a robot. Livingstone as either indecisive or a liar, and Borris as either sneaky or clueless (couldn't decide which one, but either way it was without a backbone).

having a robot in charge of London would be pretty cool, come to think of it.

Especially if it was [url=http://gizmodo.com/368651/new-video-of-bigdog-quadruped-robot-is-so-stun... one[/url].

Bo jo is a buffoon we cant have a clown like him representing our London. Can u imagine that donkey attempting to negotiate with unions or liaise with community groups? he makes a gaff a minute then spends his time with cringeworthy fake apologies. How can we be expected to vote for a fella whose own party are scared to allow him to speak cos he offends everyone. hes funny enough on the telly but i don’t want him as mayor.

i don’t even like ken that much, he is too much of a dictator but id rather put up with him then see that bumbling tory, toff embarrassing us all.

plus it would really annoy all those middle class evening standard readers and thats no bad thing.

S.G.

may_zin wrote:

"kick them out"? ...of the buses?!

...and trains!

MuslimBro wrote:

may_zin wrote:

"kick them out"? ...of the buses?!

...and trains!

In my day we didn't have children.

Ya'qub wrote:

MuslimBro wrote:

may_zin wrote:

"kick them out"? ...of the buses?!

...and trains!

In my day we didn't have children.

What d'you mean you "didn't have children"?
The population would have died out!
Do you mean there were less Young people taking the buses(and trains)?

Then what about those people who can't afford to send their children to school via public transport?

That would mean more un-educated teens, more "unruly youths" (or whatever you called them, Meaning more un-educated adults thereby creating a whole generation of Idiots... d'you think that would help the world?