Jump to content

Mayoral Race


SJD88

Recommended Posts

There have, statistically, been no more accidents with the bendy bus than with the normal bus, as Livingstone pointed out in the debate (another number Ken had which Boris didn't).

Faster:

Normal London Bus

051209_routemaster5.jpg

Bendy Bus

mfzone24.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

According to figures slipped out to the London Assembly by TfL itself, bendy buses cause 5.6 pedestrian injuries per million miles operated, compared with

2.6 per million for all other buses

The rest of this article was to Horrifically gruesome to put here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the Routmarster was scraped By Ken Livingston.

the buses worked as well as ever. In the early 1990s, they were totally refurbished, with new interiors and engines that will meet modern emission standards for a decade to come.

Surely a modern bus must be more fuel-efficient?

But here, too, remarkably, the Route master wins. The bus, with its still revolutionary light and simple aluminium structure, is lighter and less fuel-thirsty than any of the heavy modern buses which replace it. They do five and a half miles to the gallon, but the Route master does eight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the Routmarster was scraped By Ken Livingston.

the buses worked as well as ever. In the early 1990s, they were totally refurbished, with new interiors and engines that will meet modern emission standards for a decade to come.

Surely a modern bus must be more fuel-efficient?

But here, too, remarkably, the Route master wins. The bus, with its still revolutionary light and simple aluminium structure, is lighter and less fuel-thirsty than any of the heavy modern buses which replace it. They do five and a half miles to the gallon, but the Route master does eight.

Wait what? So they are replaceing them for no real reason? I mean are they cheaper last longer or somthing or is this just government waste? or some type of deal? huh this is way to funny replaceing an "icon" for little reason. Even if everything was equal i would still go with the Routmarster because its conected with London. But what do i know. Oh well another one bites the dust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ ahhhhh okay that pesky EU trying to make it eaiser for all people to use the bus. Couldn't they have modified the old buses.... well probably not or not cheap enough.

The Disability Discrimination Act will not apply to the Routemaster until 2017.

Faryal Velmi, campaigns officer of the disability transport pressure group DaRT, says that getting rid of it is very far from a top priority. The real issue for disabled bus travellers, she says, is not the number of services still operated by RMs, but the 80 per cent of London buses which are already supposed to be accessible but aren't, because many of the ramps never work.

----------

And when Boris brings back the Rout Master it will have disabled access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I have already aksed a few people I know in London who they would vote for. Heres what they said:

Ken - 1

Boris - 2

Brian - 5

If I had a vote, I would vote for Brian.

Brian paddick has been a very impressive candidate, it’s a shame the news programs depict it as a two horse race.

The other issue that bothers me about Ken Livingston is his alterations to the protected view statues of St Paul’s cathedral ,the consequences of which haven’t been seen yet.

Brian padick and Boris have both said they will restore it .

I will be giving my first preference and second preference votes to Brian padick and Boris , but I haven’t decided in which order yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good article:

'I'm a polymorphous pervert': Boris and his mayoral rivals make their case for the gay vote

Johann Hari meets the trio vying to become London's supremo

Saturday, 29 March 2008

The London mayoral election is being covered as if it was a series of "I'm a Celebrity – Get Me Into City Hall!" where instead of eating kangaroo penis, the candidates have to endure the more distasteful fate of being interviewed by Nick Ferrari.

It’s not hard to see why personality rules the coverage. This is a fight between a Homer-quoting comedian who seems to have skidded from the pages of Evelyn Waugh on a bob-sleigh, a one-time-revolutionary Labour rebel with a love for amphibians and a hatred of SUVs, and Britain’s highest-ranking gay policeman – who happens to have confessed an interest in anarchism.

But when I interviewed the mayoral candidates for this month’s issue of Attitude – Britain’s best-selling gay magazine, out on Monday – I found that behind the glitz, there is a serious skills gap between the candidates.

When I meet Boris in the shell of the old City Hall building – long-since sold off to Japanese developers and turned into hotels and offices – he is everything his ‘Have I Got News For You’ fans would hope. The jokes – genuinely funny, which is almost unprecedented in politics – tumble out. I ask him if Eton in his day was a hot-bed of sodomy. “To a degree I find personally insulting,” he says, “it wasn’t really like that for me.” I ask him if he agrees with a Ken Livingstone line from the early 1980s, that we are all potentially bisexual. “Oh, I am a polymorphous pervert,” he replies.

But when we get onto the issues, I get worried. I ask him why he supported Section 28, the notorious legislation that banned teachers from “promoting” homosexuality – and it quickly becomes clear he doesn’t actually know what it was. “As I recall the issue was to do with compulsion. Wasn't the question [about] whether or not schools should be compelled to have [these lessons]? I thought the issue was: are you compelling teachers in schools to take a particular line? I'm not in favour of that… There’s far too much proscription already of what teachers have to say and do. I’m against bossiness”

But Boris, I explain – Section 28 was the act of bossiness and proscription. It was a flat-out ban, telling teachers not to talk about gays. He goes into his ‘oh cripes’ routine, as if it is charming that he supported a piece of legislation he had totally misunderstood.

On all the questions, he seems to go into a sort of panicked free association, where he desperately to find a link to something he does know about. When I ask him what he would do to reduce the sky-high rate of suicide among gay teenagers, he starts talking about the need to get kids out of gangs – as if the Brick Lane Massiv is stocked with gay-boys and lesbians. He admits he isn’t sure what you call the unions between gay people – they’re civil partnerships, Boris.

And when I ask him how he can justify comparing gay marriage to a man marrying a dog just a few years ago, he says: “I think, as society evolved, taboos will go and shift. I was just making the point that things that seem unacceptable to one generation can be acceptable to the next generation. All I was doing was making a powerful point in favour of tolerance.”

The contrast with Ken Livingstone is startling. When I meet him at the top of the new City Hall he dubbed “the glass testicle”, he is in a laconic mood after enduring a relentless press kicking. He’s keen to talk about global warming, and says with a wry smile, “Thirty years ago, when I was planning what we would do after the British revolution, I never imagined that now I’d be trying to get people to insulate their lofts to save the world.”

But I pepper him with questions about very specific issues affecting gay Londoners, he always responds – without notes – with a battery of statistics and facts. I ask about the rise in HIV infections among gay men, and he knows the figures off the top of his head. He talks me through the practical problems: at the moment, in most of London’s STD clinics, if you go and ask for a test, they give you an appointment in two weeks’ time. “A lot of young people just aren’t going to say, ‘I'm not going to have sex for two weeks,’” he says. “The research shows that’s when you see a lot of STD transmission.” He then lists how he is lobbying the local health authorities to close this waiting gap, and what they need to do now – before going on to list other practical problems, and his solutions.

He knows the names of STD clinics all over London, and I don’t think it’s because he’s coming down with ghonnorhea: he offers this level of detail on every question I ask.

But there is one issue where gay Londoners – who have seen Ken as a defender and champion for thirty years – were shocked by the mayor. In 2004, Ken Livingstone invited an Islamic fundamentalist called Yusuf al-Qaradawi as an “honoured guest” to City Hall. This Egyptian cleric has been quoted calling for the murder of gay men and lesbians – yet when Peter Tatchell challenged Ken over it, he announced Tatchell was “Islamophobic.”

Ken backs down, a little. He says he didn’t know much about Qaradawi before this scandal broke out: he just knew that he had been praised by everyone from the Guardian to the Sun as the voice of moderate Islam. He says he “probably shouldn’t” have slammed Tatchell (damn right) but he is reluctant to believe what he has read in the papers about Qaradawi because he has read “so many lies” about himself.

“In politics you engage with people which you have profound disagreements with,” he says. “When the Mayor of Moscow comes here, I talk to him too, and he bans gay pride marches. It didn't stop me lobbying him for his three votes on the Olympics, internationally. If it had gone the other way, well, then Paris would be holding the Olympics.” He stresses that on every act of practical policy, he has sided with gay rights against religious rights. For example, when the Blair government said religious groups don’t have to follow the law banning discrimination on the basis of sexuality, Ken used the mayor’s office to lobby hard against it.

The Lib Dem candidate Brian Paddick isn’t embarrassed to appeal to the gay vote as One of Us. He says, “You know, we went through decades of being targeted by the police. Now it's pay back time.” He speaks about gay issues as a man who has fought through them all: he pledges to crack down on homophobic bullying in schools, as a survivor of it himself, and he promises to crack open homophobia in the police, as a man who rose through it to be Number Two in the Met. He has moving stories and some fresh ideas – but at times they are sketchy. When I ask him specifically what we should be doing about homophobic bullying, he keeps vaguely saying we must “do more.” Ken, by contrast, talked on this issue about the specific organisations he wants to fund, and the projects he wants to pursue.

If this race is the X-Factor of politics, Ken may end up as an ex-mayor. But if this is about who has the administrative skill, progressive politics and practical knowledge to run London, then this is no contest at all.

The Independent: 'I'm a polymorphous pervert': Boris and his mayoral rivals make their case for the gay vote.

Regarding Bojo's magic Routemasters, which can fly and run on pixie dust, the guy can't even get his sums right when it comes to how much is propositions cost. He claims £8million, then TfL correct him and say that it would be £49million and he accuses them of being politically motivated! I've have even heard figures of £100-120million mentioned, but I have no idea about the reliability of those sources.

I seriously hope Bojo doesn't win.

Regarding voting Ken to keep Boris out, remember that the electoral system for this election is proportional representation, it doesn't matter who your first preference vote is for - if it's not Boris, it counts against him. The preferential voting means that you don't have to vote Ken to vote against Boris, only the #2 is really a tatical vote. Unless you were to get really anal about it and were worried that most of the second preference votes were going to vote for BoJo, so wanting Ken to win outright in the first round.

For example, if it was Ken 55%, Boris 45%, then Ken would win. If Ken and Bojo got 45% each and... say Sian Berry got 10% then Bojo would only only have 45% and it would go to round two. If Sian and Ken got 30% each and Boris got 40%, it would still go to round two. In terms of the 50%+1, a vote for any other candidate other than Boris is a vote against Boris (and same for any other, all in the first round of course). So tatical voting is not neccessary in the first preference.

So... 1 for Sian, 2 for Ken! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue that bothers me about Ken Livingston is his alterations to the protected view statues of St Paul’s cathedral ,the consequences of which haven’t been seen yet.

He's simply narrowing the corridors so taller buildings can be built on the periphery of the City of London, without blocking the view of the cathedral itself. Without this narrowing, the City cannot expand offices upwards and will simply built outwards and destroy the heart of Shoreditch, Whitechapel and Wapping. I welcome iconic designed skyscrapers on the London skyline if it means these special residential places are saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's simply narrowing the corridors so taller buildings can be built on the periphery of the City of London, without blocking the view of the cathedral itself. Without this narrowing, the City cannot expand offices upwards and will simply built outwards and destroy the heart of Shoreditch, Whitechapel and Wapping. I welcome iconic designed skyscrapers on the London skyline if it means these special residential places are saved.

Hess narrowing the viewing corridors so tall buildings can be built absolutely any where

Including the and Holborn west end

Its got nothing to do with protecting Shoreditch as Tracy emin will testify.

she signed one of the savagest attacks on ken Livingston Iv ever read, because he’s doing the exact opposite to what you say.

And she is part of cool Britannia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hess narrowing the viewing corridors so tall buildings can be built absolutely any where

Including the and Holborn west end

No he isn't. Where do you get such misinformation from? There are no skyscrapers being proposed for Holborn, and the only ones I know if in the West End are at Victoria, which have already been reduced in height so they don't intrude on the view of Buckingham Palace.

Ken's policy for tall buildings is for iconic, well designed towers clustered around transport interchanges that provide high quality architecture, that improve the streetscape and the local surrounding amenities and contribute positively to the ever-changing London skyline.

I know of no current proposal that doesn't fall under this jurisdiction.

Its got nothing to do with protecting Shoreditch as Tracy emin will testify.

she signed one of the savagest attacks on ken Livingston Iv ever read, because he’s doing the exact opposite to what you say.

And she is part of cool Britannia.

If you mean the proposal that means the Light Bar on Shoreditch High Street has to be demolished, this proposal is going through the planning process and it is very likely City Hall will regret the loss of the bar. The development of the Bishopsgate corridor is to create a cluster of office and residential buildings that create a landmark for the northern border of the city around Liverpool Street station and the Shoreditch High Street station being built on the London Overground line. The developers will have to contribute a massive amount of money to the local community which improve the area exponentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that Ken Livingston is planning to build them in contensous places like Holborn.

Ken Livingston’s only planning policy is that every thing should be as big as possible regardless of where it is or what it looks like.

Which explaines why he accepts donations from property developers.

Also all the buildings Reduced in height have been reduced against the wishes of Ken Livingston.

Unesco didn’t have to visit London for the good of there health.

Brian Paddick and Boris both have more coherent and sane and less corrupt planning polices .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that Ken Livingston is planning to build them in contensous places like Holborn.

I'd like to know where. Even if they were proposed for Holborn, they wouldn't be much taller than what is there currently. There will never be a proposal for a Canary Wharf in Holborn, there isn't the market for it in that location. And Ken doesn't 'plan' to build them. Developers plan to build them, and they are subject to the London Plan, meaning it's very unlikely anything resembling a skyscraper would be proposed here.

Ken Livingston’s only planning policy is that every thing should be as big as possible regardless of where it is or what it looks like.

No, it isn't. There are factors regarding giving planning permission from City Hall, and that includes the locality of transport capacity and suitability for a tall building.

Which explaines why he accepts donations from property developers.

No, the Labour party were given a donation by Gerard Ronson after his planned Heron Tower was given planning permission. This tower went through all the standard strict planning routine as every other development in London has done since and before Labour came to power. The Heron Tower adds to the current City cluster and certainly does not distract from any views of St Pauls, which English Heritage tried to whip up a hysterical reaction over.

The development of Grade A office space in the City is paramount to attracting investors to the City of London, in turn maintaining a healthy economy. This involves giving the Corporation of London the powers to build office space in the guise of what international blue-chip clients want, and if that be skyscrapers of iconic design then so be it. Without these powers, the City of London economy will stagnate, causing the UK economy to stall.

Also all the buildings Reduced in height have been reduced against the wishes of Ken Livingston.

Not true, I know of several tall projects where City Hall have said a reduction in height would be preferable. The Broadgate Tower was originally taller and the Walkie Talkie was reduced when City Hall noted it would be visible against the view of St Pauls from Ludgate.

In other projects, there have instances where the Mayor has said the design would look better if it was taller; generally because the endless height reductions demanded by English Heritage result in stumpy unsoaring towers that dilutes their design for the worse.

Unesco didn’t have to visit London for the good of there health.

UNESCO should have no say over what is built in London's economic heartland. They never did during the 1960s when horrid bland office blocks were built around the Tower, which we are only now erasing from our skyline. UNESCO also regret the building of the Gherkin tower, a symbol of 21st century London that an overwhelming majority of Londoners love. UNESCO are simply denying Londoners another Gherkin landmark, and do not understand that London is an everchanging city of architecture where old and new sit perfectly well in harmony next to each other.

Brian Paddick and Boris both have more coherent and sane and less corrupt planning polices .

No they don't. Paddick wants to save London 'historic' skyline; London had its historic skyline raped in the 1960s by bland identikit cheap office blocks, and it is only now in the 2000s we have the confidence again to build an iconic soaring skyline of new 21st century spires with the Shard, Leadenhall, the Heron Tower, etc etc celebrating the past in a futuristic way. Boris wants to push tall buildings out to Canary Wharf, away from the glare of public attention, in other words preventing any need for strict planning guidelines and the push for high quality architecture. Both also are against tall residential buildings, preferring the building of houses, which London simply does not have the space for, nor the future population trends of ever increasing singles and couples in London to fill them. The only way Boris's and Paddick's policies can be fulfilled is to push London's spread further into the Greenbelt, increasing car use and journey times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developer gave secret donation to Ken Livingstone

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle3559483.ece

Well it's secret because it is under the threshold that needs to be made public.

I see nothing wrong with Ronson giving money to Ken's re-election campaign. If it is because John Prescott (not Ken, may I add) gave his tower the final go ahead, well so what? The tower was supported by everyone except English Heritage. Are you saying that the Mayor shouldn't approve any development for the fear of the developers giving money to their election campaign? What a bizarre situation we would be in if that happened.

Ken Livingston never askes for anything to be lowered for aesthetic reasons.

Usually because lowering something makes it lose its aesthetic. Basic architecture. By having a height reduction, the developer is unlikely to reduce the floorspace of the building correspondingly, meaning the building has to become wider; usually by decreasing the pedestrian space around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most buildings have an allotted space and remain the same width regardless of height

Beetham tower, Doon Street, Waterloo Three Sisters and the Pinnacle have all had their width increased due to height reductions (and all look the worse for it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beetham tower, Doon Street, Waterloo Three Sisters and the Pinnacle have all had their width increased due to height reductions (and all look the worse for it).

there all just over the river from west minister you would see

them from st James parkparliament square.

and the waterloo building were going to be as tall as the

London eye, effectively blocking the view.

Thats why Boris and Brian Paddick are going to take a more

intelgent over view and do whats best for london as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...