Tha' thar Europe...

greg66_tri_v2.0

There was never any doubt that a Conservative led Government would get through a full term without some EU-crisis that could be used to divide the Tories and/or the Coalition. And nice to see the Beeb getting its full weight behind the wedge that's forcing the divide.

Anyhoo. That's not the point of this.

On the Beeb website this morning, tucked away is this nugget

London Mayor, Boris Johnson, seen as a possible successor to Mr Cameron

Really? Really? REALLY!?

Now I like BoJo. I think he clever, and funny, and speaks his mind for better or (mostly) for worse. But a PM in waiting? Really? REALLY?!

He's a member of the Conservative Party, yes. So theoreticallyhe could be the next PM. As could a whole hell of a lot of other unsuitable members of the Conservative Party.

But who, outside of Care in the Community types and Care in a Padded Cell types harbours this as a serious belief? Or is this just the Beeb jerking around trying to fan its own fire?

gosport_commuter

LOL! Brilliant! I could really get behind that.

Never happen, but what a weird and wonderful reality it would be.

rick_chasey

You still take the BBC news seriously?

asprilla

He's be our very own low rent Silvio Berlusconi.

But with his own hair.

bails87

BoJo seems a bit of a fool who's done well off the 'rah, what larks you bounder' blundering posh boy image.

But IANALondoner.

rjsterry

Keep up Greg, this rumour's been doing the rounds for a while now

It's also reported in the Mail, Telegraph and even mentioned on boris-johnson.com - the bookies' favourite apparently.

DonDaddyD

I've read that one before.

Cameron for all my hate is benefitted by the fact that he has very few visible pretenders to his throne.

Labour? Hell I might throw my hat in....

bigmat

I think BoJo fancies himself for the job. For all his ridiculous buffoonery, he has achieved a lot and stranger things have happened. I fear I might have to do a Phil Collins though and leave the country in disgust if he ever got in.

fidbod

Bojo for foreign secretary, he can do some joint diplomatic visits with Phillip.

jamesco

Does Johnson see himself as a PM-in-waiting? Never underestimate the ego of a politician! He hasn't ruled it out and clearly has enough of a power-base & appeal to get the mayoralty, so it's only a small step, right?

Can't stand him myself, but can see the appeal to others. Still, he should have to wait in the rain to board a 29 bus everyday of his life, since he thinks populism (cute double-decker buses) outweighs practicality.

Anyway, Greg, since when did the Conservatives need encouragement getting into a civil war over those funny-talking, cheese-eating, spiky-hat-wearing Europeans?

tailwindhome

How many of you London types voted for him as Mayor?

dhope

bails87 wrote:

BoJo seems a bit of a fool who's done well off the 'rah, what larks you bounder' blundering posh boy image.

But IANALondoner.

Nah, he's an intelligent and articulate bloke who has used the blundering posh boy image well to put himself in the public eye more than he might otherwise have been.
He's toned down a bit since becoming Mayor, fewer appearances on HIGNFY and fewer rash soundbites. Still think leader Tory overlord is a bit much though.

Boris vs though?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Keep up Greg, this rumour's been doing the rounds for a while now

It's also reported in the Mail, Telegraph and even mentioned on boris-johnson.com - the bookies' favourite apparently.

Bookies' fave is something of a kiss of death, IMO. Bookies love punter putting money on outsiders. It's like being given free money.

Thinking about it, BoJo vs the Top Prefect From The Lower Sixth would be pretty entertaining. The Prefect would have no option other than to embrace and run with the Class War angle. Which is always entertaining, as the Prefect seems to forget that he went to Oxford.

Well, la-di-dah!

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

How many of you London types voted for him as Mayor?

All of us.

Except for the ones who'd prefer to live in Soviet Russia, etc...

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've read that one before.

Cameron for all my hate is benefitted by the fact that he has very few visible pretenders to his throne.

Labour? Hell I might throw my hat in....

I don't understand why you hate Cameron. You voted for the current Govt.* You're obviously a closet Tory who's still in denial.

Strong in your the dark side is. Embrace it you should.

Remember, Darth had a pretty good run at the top, and so did the Emperor. No sleeping in the innards of a snow camel, trying to snog their sibling or living in a swamp for them...



* more or less

DonDaddyD

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

MarcBC

Boris is a very very bright mind, but completely disorganised. He will not be going for Tory leader job, believe me.

jds_1981

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

How many of you London types voted for him as Mayor?

All of us.

Except for the ones who'd prefer to live in Soviet Russia, etc...

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

Pfft, about the only thing I agree with Ken on. I'd tax the living f*ck out of anyone driving into central London (excluding nurses, police etc). The posher the car, the more you pay, or something like that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

Pfft, about the only thing I agree with Ken on. I'd tax the living f*ck out of anyone driving into central London (excluding nurses, police etc). The posher the car, the more you pay, or something like that.

Right. That's another seat filled on the plane bound for Soviet Russia. Pack your bags, stand over there. Don't worry about what you're taking with you though, because it will all become property of the state once you get there...

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've read that one before.

Cameron for all my hate is benefitted by the fact that he has very few visible pretenders to his throne.

Labour? Hell I might throw my hat in....

I don't understand why you hate Cameron. You voted for the current Govt.* You're obviously a closet Tory who's still in denial.

Strong in your the dark side is. Embrace it you should.

Remember, Darth had a pretty good run at the top, and so did the Emperor. No sleeping in the innards of a snow camel, trying to snog their sibling or living in a swamp for them...

* more or less

The only Emperor was Blair - he, like Palapatine had us all believe that he was a force for good. "Over eyes wool covered". The guy is evil. I like him for that.

I don't like this batch of Tories to be honest. And I find Cameron too much of a crowd pleaser dihering between appeasing his back benches while stroking the necks of the Libs. They dither between left leaning policies and right sided polices and it's benfitting noone. I also disagree with Cameron's war on the public services - I think public services are the corner stone to maintaining a society, not sustaining it. Cuts needed its the where they're made and why.

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

Pfft, about the only thing I agree with Ken on. I'd tax the living f*ck out of anyone driving into central London (excluding nurses, police etc). The posher the car, the more you pay, or something like that.

Right. That's another seat filled on the plane bound for Soviet Russia. Pack your bags, stand over there. Don't worry about what you're taking with you though, because it will all become property of the state once you get there...

You could always trade down...

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

Pfft, about the only thing I agree with Ken on. I'd tax the living f*ck out of anyone driving into central London (excluding nurses, police etc). The posher the car, the more you pay, or something like that.

They already tax the hell out of the car. Modern society and it's infrastructure was built around the automobile to wage war on it now. After a point you get nothing from increasing taxation and hindering peoples mobility.

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

Pfft, about the only thing I agree with Ken on. I'd tax the living f*ck out of anyone driving into central London (excluding nurses, police etc). The posher the car, the more you pay, or something like that.

Right. That's another seat filled on the plane bound for Soviet Russia. Pack your bags, stand over there. Don't worry about what you're taking with you though, because it will all become property of the state once you get there...

Yup, there's no middle ground between the Tories and Soviet Russia, none at all... :?

I think I voted Ken, but with a heavy heart. BoJo, Red Ken and Paddick - a dismal array of candidates for a city like London. I have to say though, I don't think there is a great deal wrong with the concept behind the congestion charge.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

Pfft, about the only thing I agree with Ken on. I'd tax the living f*ck out of anyone driving into central London (excluding nurses, police etc). The posher the car, the more you pay, or something like that.

Right. That's another seat filled on the plane bound for Soviet Russia. Pack your bags, stand over there. Don't worry about what you're taking with you though, because it will all become property of the state once you get there...

You could always trade down...

Class War is *so* ugly...

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

I don't think there is a great deal wrong with the concept behind the congestion charge.

Well, let me point out the biggest problem with it that Commie Ken implemented.

It's supposed to discourage people from driving within it, right? It does this by levying a fee for the privilege of driving within the zone. But if you're a resident within the zone, you get a discount.

CC area #1 (as originally implemented, and as is now) had relatively little residential property in it. CC area #2 (the Western extension) had a ton. By extending West, Ken brought in a huge swathe of residential area and thereby residents who could drive in the larger zone at a discounted rate. That's not going to reduce congestion.

Which leads to the question: what really is the concept behind the CC? Is it to discourage car use, or tax it? If it were to discourage car use, it would be set at a level that would do just that. Say, oh, £25* or £50 a day. Or more.

If, OTOH, it's there not to discourage car use, but to raise money, then you pitch it at the "well that's inconvenient but it's not going to break the bank and it's still better for me to pay it and have convenience than schlep my stuff around on PT". Which is where it's at.

And then there's the icing on cake, which is that despite the money raising concept behind it, it's so bloody expensive to administer that without the fines it would be loss making. Brilliant.

So, what was the concept again? Oh yes. Don't reduce car use levels and pay public money to do it. Awesome.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I don't think there is a great deal wrong with the concept behind the congestion charge.

Well, let me point out the biggest problem with it that Commie Ken implemented.

It's supposed to discourage people from driving within it, right? It does this by levying a fee for the privilege of driving within the zone. But if you're a resident within the zone, you get a discount.

CC area #1 (as originally implemented, and as is now) had relatively little residential property in it. CC area #2 (the Western extension) had a ton. By extending West, Ken brought in a huge swathe of residential area and thereby residents who could drive in the larger zone at a discounted rate. That's not going to reduce congestion.

Which leads to the question: what really is the concept behind the CC? Is it to discourage car use, or tax it? If it were to discourage car use, it would be set at a level that would do just that. Say, oh, £25* or £50 a day. Or more.

If, OTOH, it's there not to discourage car use, but to raise money, then you pitch it at the "well that's inconvenient but it's not going to break the bank and it's still better for me to pay it and have convenience than schlep my stuff around on PT". Which is where it's at.

And then there's the icing on cake, which is that despite the money raising concept behind it, it's so bloody expensive to administer that without the fines it would be loss making. Brilliant.

So, what was the concept again? Oh yes. Don't reduce car use levels and pay public money to do it. Awesome.

Really..?

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn31.pdf

rick_chasey

From the above, a case example from Durham.

Durham
Durham became the first UK city to introduce an explicit congestion charge, in 2002. Its
scheme is, however, on a much smaller scale than London’s – it operates essentially along
one street in the older part of the city, and is a £2 charge payable between 10.00a.m. and
4.00p.m., Monday to Saturday. The aim had been to reduce the traffic levels within the charging zone from 2,000 vehicles per day to 1,000; in fact, the drop was 90%, to just
200. This, of course, had the effect of reducing the revenue from the scheme,
highlighting the incompatibility of the revenue-raising and traffic-reducing aims of
congestion charges on whatever scale.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't vote (for London Mayor). Neither did my Mum. I couldn't vote Tory nor could my Mum, but I couldn't bring myself to vote Ken. His congestion charge was one thing - he'd have me pay to simply walk in London.

On the day of voting my Dad who wasn't going to vote either (and it's really bad when a Labour household won't vote Labour) learned that my Mum and I weren't voting so raced down to the voting booth to vote Bojo simply to curtail Ken's plans to destroy the automobile in London.

Pfft, about the only thing I agree with Ken on. I'd tax the living f*ck out of anyone driving into central London (excluding nurses, police etc). The posher the car, the more you pay, or something like that.

They already tax the hell out of the car. Modern society and it's infrastructure was built around the automobile to wage war on it now. After a point you get nothing from increasing taxation and hindering peoples mobility.

Whaaa? I'm talking about central London here. You don't need a car to "get about." Honestly, people and their f*cking cars.

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I don't think there is a great deal wrong with the concept behind the congestion charge.

Well, let me point out the biggest problem with it that Commie Ken implemented.

It's supposed to discourage people from driving within it, right? It does this by levying a fee for the privilege of driving within the zone. But if you're a resident within the zone, you get a discount.

CC area #1 (as originally implemented, and as is now) had relatively little residential property in it. CC area #2 (the Western extension) had a ton. By extending West, Ken brought in a huge swathe of residential area and thereby residents who could drive in the larger zone at a discounted rate. That's not going to reduce congestion.

Which leads to the question: what really is the concept behind the CC? Is it to discourage car use, or tax it? If it were to discourage car use, it would be set at a level that would do just that. Say, oh, £25* or £50 a day. Or more.

If, OTOH, it's there not to discourage car use, but to raise money, then you pitch it at the "well that's inconvenient but it's not going to break the bank and it's still better for me to pay it and have convenience than schlep my stuff around on PT". Which is where it's at.

And then there's the icing on cake, which is that despite the money raising concept behind it, it's so bloody expensive to administer that without the fines it would be loss making. Brilliant.

So, what was the concept again? Oh yes. Don't reduce car use levels and pay public money to do it. Awesome.

That's not the concept, that's the reality (arguably). In fact, I think it probably has reduced car use, which hopefully we can agree is a good thing

rick_chasey

And you can check out wikipedia and all the referenced links too at this bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_con ... ate_impact

On 23 October 2003 TfL published a report reviewing the first six months of the charge. The report's main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, 15–25% switching to car share, and the remainder to reduced number of journeys, more travelling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and bicycles. Journey times were found to have been reduced by 14%. Variation in journey time for a particular route repeated on many occasions also decreased. The report also claimed that although the charge was responsible for about 4,000 fewer people visiting the zone daily, that the charge was responsible for only a small fraction of the 7% drop in retail sales reported.[82][83] The report also stated that around 100,000 penalty fines were issued each month, of which about 2,000 were contested