Will Andy Lord be good for the TfL?

[Fazaar1889]

Andy "Train Daddy" Byford is leaving the TfL soon and Andy Lord will replace him. How well do you all think he will run the TfL? Has he got a good track record? Does the future seem bright or dark?

 

[zwk500]

I think the exact person in charge of TfL is becoming less important than the relationship between the Mayor and the secretary of state for Transport

 

[bramling]

Andy "Train Daddy" Byford is leaving the TfL soon and Andy Lord will replace him. How well do you all think he will run the TfL? Has he got a good track record? Does the future seem bright or dark?

I’d say the future is fairly dark for TFL at the moment. The fundamental problem is New Labour changed London’s transport operator from a transport provider to a political organisation, tied in to an artificial political construct in the form of the mayor, and worse that transport is one of the few areas where the mayoralty actually has any influence at all.

Add in some newer factors, namely that London is now very much a Labour city (just as New Labour / Blair intended) against a backdrop of a still largely Conservative England, and a government who don’t have any problem with not acting as a government for all, even those who didn’t vote for them, and the outlook isn’t great. Unfortunately London transport became toxified when it was attached to the mayor. It doesn’t help that all three mayors have been pretty toxic characters in their own right too.

The other big problem is TFL is struggling to attract quality people in all areas. Partly because London seems to lag in terms of availability of quality people these days, but also because TFL has always relied on attracting quality people from the wider south-east, but their pay and conditions are now starting to lag, and who in their right mind would want to work for such a toxic organisation? The only reason for working for TFL is if you don’t want to work for someone like Abellio or First Group, but with the way TFL has gone I’m not sure that’s even a good shout any more.

 

[Taunton]

I'm not quite clear what Andy Byford actually did. Sure, Crossrail was opened, but that was meant to have happened long before he joined, surely there was not a prospect that it could have been even later without his interventions.

The only Commissioner who appeared to actually achieve things was Sir Peter Hendy, sufficiently competent to have been retained by Mayors from both sides of politics.

If the Mayor and future Mayors keep on exasperating the government I suspect TfL one day will be taken back into the Department for Transport, along with all its funding.

 

[stuu]

I’d say the future is fairly dark for TFL at the moment. The fundamental problem is New Labour changed London’s transport operator from a transport provider to a political organisation, tied in to an artificial political construct in the form of the mayor, and worse that transport is one of the few areas where the mayoralty actually has any influence at all.

Why is a mayor of a big city an artificial construct? London was an outlier in not having a city authority. What is a natural political construct?

 

[bramling]

Why is a mayor of a big city an artificial construct? London was an outlier in not having a city authority. What is a natural political construct?

It was done just to give London a “feel good factor”, make people feel important by having “their” mayor. Blair calculated that this would be a shoe-in for Labour, which went wrong initially when Livingstone appeared, and then again when Johnson was elected, but did ultimately come good in the form of Khan.

Why does a city need some kind of figurehead? Most of the country doesn’t seem to feel the need for it. What has it done for London apart from plaster slogans up all round the place?

 

[Taunton]

Why is a mayor of a big city an artificial construct? London was an outlier in not having a city authority. What is a natural political construct?

The quote was about "politics", not about a "city authority". I don't think the London mayor does anything any more, nor spend any public money, without this narrow political veneer all over it. It's not a feature of many city authorities elsewhere, though Manchester is going that way too..

If you think this is not an accurate portrayal, try and get a job nowadays in TfL administration, down to quite a low level, without having the right sort of views.

 

[Domh245]

Why does a city need some kind of figurehead? Most of the country doesn’t seem to feel the need for it.

Most of the country doesn't have a population to rival mid-sized european countries..

 

[Horizon22]

It was done just to give London a “feel good factor”, make people feel important by having “their” mayor. Blair calculated that this would be a shoe-in for Labour, which went wrong initially when Livingstone appeared, and then again when Johnson was elected, but did ultimately come good in the form of Khan.

Why does a city need some kind of figurehead? Most of the country doesn’t seem to feel the need for it. What has it done for London apart from plaster slogans up all round the place?

West Midlands has a Mayor. Bristol has a Mayor. Even Tees Valley has a Mayor. A significant % of the country has a Mayor, and it is not a new construct. London is not distinct here. Don't forget London has a bigger population than Scotland (by about 4 million), which has a much bigger parliament.

 

[Starmill]

The quote was about "politics", not about a "city authority". I don't think the London mayor does anything any more, nor spend any public money, without this narrow political veneer all over it. It's not a feature of many city authorities elsewhere, though Manchester is going that way too..

If you think this is not an accurate portrayal, try and get a job nowadays in TfL administration, down to quite a low level, without having the right sort of views.

The Coalition Government saw fit to oversee a dramatic expansion of this sort of policy. Indeed they were desperate to get Combined Authorities set up so they could have a Mayor.

Surely the real problem is the opposite, that too much power rests with the local authorities and isn't pooled into the combined one and thus the Mayor?

 

[bramling]

West Midlands has a Mayor. Bristol has a Mayor. Even Tees Valley has a Mayor. A significant % of the country has a Mayor, and it is not a new construct. London is not distinct here. Don't forget London has a bigger population than Scotland (by about 4 million), which has a much bigger parliament.

Indeed the latter was another similar New Labour sop. Why does somewhere need a mayor simply due to having a dense population within a given area? All this all seems to achieve is to sew division, and indeed the current London mayor seems to do that very very well, as indeed does Nicola Sturgeon.

 

[stuu]

It was done just to give London a “feel good factor”, make people feel important by having “their” mayor. Blair calculated that this would be a shoe-in for Labour, which went wrong initially when Livingstone appeared, and then again when Johnson was elected, but did ultimately come good in the form of Khan.

Why does a city need some kind of figurehead? Most of the country doesn’t seem to feel the need for it. What has it done for London apart from plaster slogans up all round the place?

Was it? Or this an assertion because you don't like it?

Why does anything need a figurehead? The UK is incredibly centralised, it needs more devolution not less. There might be a case for the mayor being the leader of the biggest group in the GLA, rather than directly elected, but generally worldwide cities and regions have their own government. Subsidiarity should exist everywhere, not just in the bodge-up we have at the moment

 

[Taunton]

The Coalition Government saw fit to oversee a dramatic expansion of this sort of policy. Indeed they were desperate to get Combined Authorities set up so they could have a Mayor.

Surely the real problem is the opposite, that too much power rests with the local authorities and isn't pooled into the combined one and thus the Mayor?

Actually there's now one of these for London as well, the "London Councils" Quango, run by the 32 boroughs, who seem to be a complete duplicate of what the London Mayor/Assembly combination does. I first became aware of this when I found they had set up a display in a shop unit at Heathrow airport, self-publicising their own organisation, claimed as "we represent London overall to the government". Possibly best known here as running the pensioners Freedom Pass on TfL, which surely could have been run just by TfL themselves.

 

[bramling]

Was it? Or this an assertion because you don't like it?

What other reason was there for Blair to create it? Especially considering how cynical Blair was in pursuing populist measures.

Why does anything need a figurehead? The UK is incredibly centralised, it needs more devolution not less. There might be a case for the mayor being the leader of the biggest group in the GLA, rather than directly elected, but generally worldwide cities and regions have their own government. Subsidiarity should exist everywhere, not just in the bodge-up we have at the moment

If we’re going to have genuine subsidiary then fine, though bearing in mind that it’s a costly extra layer of government so anyone advocating it needs to advocate a good case that the benefits outweigh the costs (I’m not sure they do, but that’s a different discussion). We don’t have this, instead a few selected places have electable mayors, by and large places that happen to be Labour. Why should someone living in Barnet merit a mayor, yet someone in Harpenden doesn’t? Both places are pretty similar in their dynamic, except that one happens to be within an area that happens to be called London. Same with the whole TFL versus non-TFL discussion on rail services.

 

[James H]

Actually there's now one of these for London as well, the "London Councils" Quango, run by the 32 boroughs, who seem to be a complete duplicate of what the London Mayor/Assembly combination does. I first became aware of this when I found they had set up a display in a shop unit at Heathrow airport, self-publicising their own organisation, claimed as "we represent London overall to the government". Possibly best known here as running the pensioners Freedom Pass on TfL, which surely could have been run just by TfL themselves.

London Councils isn’t new.

It used to be called the Association of London Government.

It makes some sense to have a body that brings the 32 boroughs together to cooperate on matters of common interest

Yes their responsibility for the Freedom Pass is a bit anomalous but is a legacy of the distribution of responsibilities when the GLC was abolished in the 80s.

 

[matt_world2004]

Not as good as Andy Buford and some of the statements Andy Lord made during the recent industrial action did not soothe relations

 

[XAM2175]

Indeed the latter was another similar New Labour sop. Why does somewhere need a mayor simply due to having a dense population within a given area? All this all seems to achieve is to sew division, and indeed the current London mayor seems to do that very very well, as indeed does Nicola Sturgeon.

So, in plainer terms: any administrative structure that doesn't exactly serve your needs and interests in the exact way you wish them to be served is "an artificial political construct", "divisive", and a "New Labour sop".

If you think this is not an accurate portrayal, try and get a job nowadays in TfL administration, down to quite a low level, without having the right sort of views.

Incompatible with yours, obviously.

 

[Starmill]

Actually there's now one of these for London as well, the "London Councils" Quango, run by the 32 boroughs, who seem to be a complete duplicate of what the London Mayor/Assembly combination does. I first became aware of this when I found they had set up a display in a shop unit at Heathrow airport, self-publicising their own organisation, claimed as "we represent London overall to the government". Possibly best known here as running the pensioners Freedom Pass on TfL, which surely could have been run just by TfL themselves.

It sounds like you're advocating for something much closer to the former GLC structure. Which many people argued shouldn't have been broken up in the way it was in the first place...

 

[stuu]

If we’re going to have genuine subsidiary then fine, though bearing in mind that it’s a costly extra layer of government so anyone advocating it needs to advocate a good case that the benefits outweigh the costs (I’m not sure they do, but that’s a different discussion). We don’t have this, instead a few selected places have electable mayors, by and large places that happen to be Labour. Why should someone living in Barnet merit a mayor, yet someone in Harpenden doesn’t? Both places are pretty similar in their dynamic, except that one happens to be within an area that happens to be called London. Same with the whole TFL versus non-TFL discussion on rail services.

I agree, that's not right, it should have been done properly, countrywide rather than just here and there. There are of course already regional bodies which have a chairman, they just aren't elected

 

[Thirteen]

I would imagine TfL would keep its autonomy if there is a Labour Government but I do think that they need to be at arms lengths from both the GLA and the DfT.

I’ve mentioned it before but transport authorities in most places always end up in political football so it’s not really exclusive to London. Byford had issues when he was in charge of the NYTA due to both the Governor of New York and the Mayor of New York.

 

[Horizon22]

Indeed the latter was another similar New Labour sop. Why does somewhere need a mayor simply due to having a dense population within a given area? All this all seems to achieve is to sew division, and indeed the current London mayor seems to do that very very well, as indeed does Nicola Sturgeon.

Sounds to me more that you don’t like the people / parties elected, rather than the system.

As it stands I personally would be more in favour of a regional system in the UK with actual power, rather that the mis-match we have now. But I still see merit of the system, even if the GLA has very limited authority (ironically).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2022 ==

If you think this is not an accurate portrayal, try and get a job nowadays in TfL administration, down to quite a low level, without having the right sort of views.

That is complete nonsense.

 

[bramling]

Sounds to me more that you don’t like the people / parties elected, rather than the system.

As it stands I personally would be more in favour of a regional system in the UK with actual power, rather that the mis-match we have now. But I still see merit of the system, even if the GLA has very limited authority (ironically).

If one looks at the London mayors, it’s hardly a surprise if one isn’t overly keen on the people. Three pretty rank individuals in their own special ways. Then one looks at the situation in Scotland which hasn’t really produced a great outcome. Even in Wales the prevailing view, even among Labour voters, seems to be “here in Wales we have our silly little assembly which spends its time dreaming up silly little rules”. If we’re going to have local government then we should have a properly federal setup, although I can’t really see it working when the whole raison d’etre for local government seems to be “we have a rough deal here”, which kind of doesn’t work when everywhere seems to feel they have a rough deal and the grass is greener elsewhere, which seems to sum up the U.K.!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2022 ==



That is complete nonsense.

TFL is certainly pretty political, and seems to have got rather more so since Khan is on the scene. I’m increasingly convinced as an organisation it should be torn up and started from a clean slate, but in so doing it needs to be separated from too much political influence. Transport in London has always been uncomfortably close to politicians, but it’s several orders of magnitude worse nowadays.

 

[Thirteen]

Sounds to me more that you don’t like the people / parties elected, rather than the system.

As it stands I personally would be more in favour of a regional system in the UK with actual power, rather that the mis-match we have now. But I still see merit of the system, even if the GLA has very limited authority (ironically).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2022 ==



That is complete nonsense.

I've always thought a system similar to what Australia has would work well in the UK although I think having a First Minister for just England would be too much but perhaps one for the North of England and one for the South of England might be workable.

TFL is certainly pretty political, and seems to have got rather more so since Khan is on the scene. I’m increasingly convinced as an organisation it should be torn up and started from a clean slate, but in so doing it needs to be separated from too much political influence. Transport in London has always been uncomfortably close to politicians, but it’s several orders of magnitude worse nowadays.

I don't mind Sadiq Khan but some of the scaremongering by him about how transport in London would somehow go back to the 1990s was a bit much and I think having someone who is politically neutral in charge of TfL means that they can sort out things like funding and long term planning rather than be stuck in the middle between disputes.

 

[Horizon22]

If one looks at the London mayors, it’s hardly a surprise if one isn’t overly keen on the people. Three pretty rank individuals in their own special ways. Then one looks at the situation in Scotland which hasn’t really produced a great outcome. Even in Wales the prevailing view, even among Labour voters, seems to be “here in Wales we have our silly little assembly which spends its time dreaming up silly little rules”. If we’re going to have local government then we should have a properly federal setup, although I can’t really see it working when the whole raison d’etre for local government seems to be “we have a rough deal here”, which kind of doesn’t work when everywhere seems to feel they have a rough deal and the grass is greener elsewhere, which seems to sum up the U.K.!




TFL is certainly pretty political, and seems to have got rather more so since Khan is on the scene. I’m increasingly convinced as an organisation it should be torn up and started from a clean slate, but in so doing it needs to be separated from too much political influence. Transport in London has always been uncomfortably close to politicians, but it’s several orders of magnitude worse nowadays.

Anything over which a politician has power gets political…see the NHS or education. There are lots of elements of society and the economy that would be better left to “the experts” but we will never in a democratic society remove that influence.

That being said TfL and transport generally is one of the few things the London Mayor does have control over, which is probably why it’s a rather disproportionate influence that they wield in this area specifically.

Off-topic but I would agree a federal, regional system would be a good way forward

 

[SynthD]

It started going more political when DfT minister Grayling wrote to Mayor Johnson that any devolvement of rail would benefit a future Labour mayor and therefore won’t happen.

It’s interesting seeing the opinions about local democracy, but I am keen to know more about the original question. He doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, so this LinkedIn profile is the most helpful link I’ve found

 

[bramling]

Anything over which a politician has power gets political…see the NHS or education. There are lots of elements of society and the economy that would be better left to “the experts” but we will never in a democratic society remove that influence.

That being said TfL and transport generally is one of the few things the London Mayor does have control over, which is probably why it’s a rather disproportionate influence that they wield in this area specifically.

The latter I agree is certainly part of the problem. I seem to remember at one point the Picc Line resignalling was being justified on a cost/benefit of how many units of housing it was going to “unlock”, which is pretty absurd.

Off-topic but I would agree a federal, regional system would be a good way forward

I see no reason why we couldn’t have London/South-East, South West, East Midlands, West Midlands, North West and North East. Dividing up Wales and Scotland is possibly more problematic, but I’d certainly separate north and South Wales in some way. The current setup seems to achieve the worst of all worlds, and isn’t helped by the rather odd tendency for odd characters to be elected - indeed in London it seems to be part of the job description that one has to be an odious bitter oddball.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2022 ==

It started going more political when DfT minister Grayling wrote to Mayor Johnson that any devolvement of rail would benefit a future Labour mayor and therefore won’t happen.

It’s interesting seeing the opinions about local democracy, but I am keen to know more about the original question. He doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, so this LinkedIn profile is the most helpful link I’ve found

Most of the current LU management are pretty confrontational, which seems to be a throwback to Johnson’s mayoral tenure if anything.

 

[Thirteen]

It started going more political when DfT minister Grayling wrote to Mayor Johnson that any devolvement of rail would benefit a future Labour mayor and therefore won’t happen.

It’s interesting seeing the opinions about local democracy, but I am keen to know more about the original question. He doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, so this LinkedIn profile is the most helpful link I’ve found

I find it strange that a Conservative Minister would deny a Conservative Mayor's request for railway devolvement although The Conservative GLA members are against TfL gaining more routes in London for some reasons.

I think in the unlikely event of London electing another Conservative Mayor at the next Mayoral Election, you would think a future Labour Government would want to support London and TfL rather than play political football but obviously it depends on who the candidate was.

 

[Horizon22]

The latter I agree is certainly part of the problem. I seem to remember at one point the Picc Line resignalling was being justified on a cost/benefit of how many units of housing it was going to “unlock”, which is pretty absurd.

Not necessarily; if it adds extra capacity to the network, which in turn means housing can progress and more fares, it would all be factored into the calculation.

 

[Taunton]

Incompatible with yours, obviously.

An expression that identifying TfL's political bias is only done because one is of the opposite political view. Not at all, some of us have a straightforward view of things. It's apparent, for example, that the current Prime Minister has packed the Cabinet and Ministeries with her own supporters. That is likewise not the way to run a state body.

 

[XAM2175]

Then one looks at the situation in Scotland which hasn’t really produced a great outcome.

And yet a significant majority of voters in Scotland supported the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and to this day the notion that its powers should be returned to Westminster is one very seldom encountered.

The current setup seems to achieve the worst of all worlds ...

Primarily because the politics and administration of the UK - and England in particular - are still too firmly anchored in Westminster and Whitehall. The fact that the devolution of power from that centre has been so often so haphazard and half-hearted is not a failing of the concept itself.

An expression that identifying TfL's political bias is only done because one is of the opposite political view. Not at all, some of us have a straightforward view of things. It's apparent, for example, that the current Prime Minister has packed the Cabinet and Ministeries with her own supporters. That is likewise not the way to run a state body.

The example of a Prime Minister filling their inner circle with especially-enthusiastic supporters is quite a long way, though, from your original assertion that to be employed by TfL as anything above a minor functionary requires ideological alignment with the current Mayor.

If you'd prefer, I can instead echo @Horizon22's response:

That is complete nonsense.