TFL & "Managed Decline"

[Nicks]

A lot more than 20% unmasked on the buses I’ve been on, and rising by the day. Whether passengers are wearing masks or not is nothing to do with bus drivers. If they choose to make an issue of it then more fool them.

TfL employs people (not the enforcement officers) specifically to monitor the wearing of masks by passengers and employees every day throughout the network so they know what the situation is on the ground.

 

[bramling]

It seems the Mayor of London is using press releases about jobs elsewhere in UK to try and justify funding, ahead of expiry of temporary funding extension by Government

Mayor warns of threat to jobs if Government fails to properly fund TfL

Sadiq Khan warns of threat to thousands of jobs across the country if the Government fails to properly fund TfL

www.london.gov.uk

As if Khan gives a stuff about anything outside London. He would build a wall round London if he could get away with it. The worst sort of parochial “politician”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As if Khan gives a stuff about anything outside London. He would build a wall round London if he could get away with it. The worst sort of parochial “politician”.

It's no more his job to care about anything outside London than it is the Leader of Milton Keynes Council's job to care about the street sweeping in Tower Hamlets.

 

[43066]

TfL employs people (not the enforcement officers) specifically to monitor the wearing of masks by passengers and employees every day throughout the network so they know what the situation is on the ground.

I was talking there about my personal experience, which may of course differ from the “average”. In any case, I’m not sure how much I trust TfL “surveys”. Khan last summer tried to assure us that, based on surveys, people would be put off travelling if mask mandation was removed. What actually happened last time around was that similar or greater numbers of people continued to travel, and most simply stopped wearing masks.

As if Khan gives a stuff about anything outside London. He would build a wall round London if he could get away with it. The worst sort of parochial “politician”.

And he’s mightily selective about what he cares about inside London!

 

[bramling]

It's no more his job to care about anything outside London than it is the Leader of Milton Keynes Council's job to care about the street sweeping in Tower Hamlets.

Thank you for summing up in one sentence why the mayor’s post should be abolished. Parochial “politics” has no place in our capital city.

I use the term politics in inverted commas, as Khan seems more of a soapbox for his own personal chips on shoulder than a serious politician.

 

[Wolfie]

Thank you for summing up in one sentence why the mayor’s post should be abolished. Parochial “politics” has no place in our capital city.

I use the term politics in inverted commas, as Khan seems more of a soapbox for his own personal chips on shoulder than a serious politician.

If Khan were to get involved in national issues you would doubtless criticise him for overstepping his boundaries. Criticising the mayor of London for, derrr, focussing on London issues smacks solely of disliking the individual. He is, incidentally, a thousand percent more credible than his utterly useless predecessor.

 

[Horizon22]

Thank you for summing up in one sentence why the mayor’s post should be abolished. Parochial “politics” has no place in our capital city.

I use the term politics in inverted commas, as Khan seems more of a soapbox for his own personal chips on shoulder than a serious politician.

That's not a sensible argument. With that you would suggest we shouldn't have Mayors anywhere then and no devolution anywhere? If you're against localist / regional politics fine, but you'd have to apply it everywhere for a consistent argument.

 

[43066]

If Khan were to get involved in national issues you would doubtless criticise him for overstepping his boundaries. Criticising the mayor of London for, derrr, focussing on London issues smacks solely of disliking the individual.

Oh Khan does that too. I seem to remember him regularly sticking his oar in over Brexit, and even getting involved in public spats with a certain American president who happened not to be to his liking.

Selectively focussing on London issues (eg demanding masks on the underground), while ignoring others (such as soaring knife crime and Crossrail), despite both policing and transport apparently being part of the mayor’s remit. There doesn’t seem to be any actual accountability to anybody, or requirement to take responsibility for failures.

Why is Cressida Dick still in post, for example? Most relevantly to this thread, why was Khan free to run for election on the basis of promising a “populist” fares freeze and now we see him threatening to close underground lines due to a lack of funding? Little sign of taking responsibility for his own decisions there.

An irrational dislike of Boris buses and calling Johnson BoZo at every opportunity also smacks somewhat of disliking the individual.

He is, incidentally, a thousand percent more credible than his utterly useless predecessor.

To you perhaps. Many others would disagree. Remind us how many landslide general election victories Khan has won?

That's not a sensible argument. With that you would suggest we shouldn't have Mayors anywhere then and no devolution anywhere? If you're against localist / regional politics fine, but you'd have to apply it everywhere for a consistent argument.

The problem is the mayor of London seems to be largely an ineffectual role, which politicians like Khan and Johnson can use to build their own personal brand without actually being required to do very much of note. Makes total sense when you remember the position was created by New Labour to entrench its position in overwhelming Labour London (Johnson was an aberration).

 

[Horizon22]

To you perhaps. Many others would disagree. Remind us how many landslide general election victories Khan has won?

The problem is the mayor of London seems to be largely an ineffectual role, which politicians like Khan and Johnson can use to build their own personal brand without actually being required to do very much of note. Makes total sense when you remember the position was created by New Labour to entrench its position in overwhelming Labour London (Johnson was an aberration).

Khan won 44% of the vote in 2016, more than the "landslide" 42.4% the Tories won in 2019. Not saying I agree with all he does, but its certainly quite the mandate.

London Assembly was created alongside the Welsh & Scottish Assemblies as part of the devolution agenda. You could very cynically that was to "entrench its position" although it hasn't turned out that well for them in Scotland so I doubt that was the overall aim. Transport is arguably one of the areas where they've had the most impact over the decades. It has more impact than many other Mayors across the country.

 

[Domh245]

Why is Cressida Dick still in post, for example

Because the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police is a role that reports to & is selected by the home secretary. Whilst she's accountable to the mayor & mayor's office for police & crime, they alone won't be able to see her removed.

Most relevantly to this thread, why was Khan free to run for election on the basis of promising a “populist” fares freeze and now we see him threatening to close underground lines due to a lack of funding? Little sign of taking responsibility for his own decisions there.

I didn't realise Sadiq was responsible for the global pandemic!

 

[bramling]

Khan won 44% of the vote in 2016, more than the "landslide" 42.4% the Tories won in 2019. Not saying I agree with all he does, but its certainly quite the mandate.

London Assembly was created alongside the Welsh & Scottish Assemblies as part of the devolution agenda. You could very cynically that was to "entrench its position" although it hasn't turned out that well for them in Scotland so I doubt that was the overall aim. Transport is arguably one of the areas where they've had the most impact over the decades. It has more impact than many other Mayors across the country.

When one looks back to the late 1990s, it seems fairly clear that devolution was to entrench Labour’s position. The significant shift in Scotland from Labour to SNP domination wasn’t envisaged.

As for Khan, I’m not sure the vote share necessarily translates to enthusiastic support. Pretty much anyone I know who has voted for Khan has done so on a “least worst” basis, or because they consider Shaun Bailey even worse.

Looking back at at the history of London mayors, it’s hardly a success story. The first one a racist oddball, the second generally regarded as a clown, and the third one a very seedy agenda of identity politics.

 

[Grumbler]

Thank you for summing up in one sentence why the mayor’s post should be abolished. Parochial “politics” has no place in our capital city.

I use the term politics in inverted commas, as Khan seems more of a soapbox for his own personal chips on shoulder than a serious politician.

"Politics": "Poly" = many, "tics" = blood-sucking parasites.

 

[SynthD]

None of that is relevant. The decline is a fairly well managed method of coping with the funding crisis.

 

[43066]

Khan won 44% of the vote in 2016, more than the "landslide" 42.4% the Tories won in 2019. Not saying I agree with all he does, but its certainly quite the mandate.

But of course 44% of London voters is a far smaller number than 42.4% of the wider electorate. The original point was that Johnson lacks credibility; I’d dispute that simply based on results. Whatever you think of the man Johnson won two mayoral terms (all the more impressive for a Tory in Labour stronghold London), and then led his party to a landslide election victory. That doesn’t happen by accident.

I’m also unclear what any London Mayor has has a mandate to do exactly.

London Assembly was created alongside the Welsh & Scottish Assemblies as part of the devolution agenda. You could very cynically that was to "entrench its position" although it hasn't turned out that well for them in Scotland so I doubt that was the overall aim. Transport is arguably one of the areas where they've had the most impact over the decades. It has more impact than many other Mayors across the country.

I strongly suspect it was (don’t politicians always have an aim that’s more than meets the eye?!), they just didn’t count on the SNP.

Because the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police is a role that reports to & is selected by the home secretary. Whilst she's accountable to the mayor & mayor's office for police & crime, they alone won't be able to see her removed.

So, if she’s accountable to the mayor, why doesn’t he demand her resignation?! At least Johnson was instrumental in getting rid of the last lemon in that role (Ian Blair resigned when he “lost the mayor’s confidence”).

I didn't realise Sadiq was responsible for the global pandemic!

He implemented the fares freeze which has done nothing to help TfL’s finances. Arguably that was a fairly irresponsible policy, even if it were not for the pandemic.

And that’s the biggest issue; he doesn’t seem to be actually responsible for anything (admittedly that’s a criticism of the position itself rather than Khan as an individual). The Mayor of London role really is the worst kind of US style “personality politics” - it’s a great shame the position was ever created.

 

[Horizon22]

But of course 44% of London voters is a far smaller number than 42.4% of the wider electorate. The original point was that Johnson lacks credibility; I’d dispute that simply based on results. Whatever you think of the man Johnson won two mayoral terms (all the more impressive for a Tory in Labour stronghold London), and then led his party to a landslide election victory. That doesn’t happen by accident.

I wasn't making that point - although perhaps others were. You can't say its a landslide for one electorate and not another - Khan's electorate is London not the country so its an irrelevant point. He won a "landslide" in London if you want to use the 2019 GE figures as a base. Obviously there are different electoral systems at play (Tory wouldn't have a landslide on 42.4% under some form of proportional representation). The Mayor of London has always been "character" focussed, and whilst I might not like it, that's been part of the role.

I’m also unclear what any London Mayor has has a mandate to do exactly.

https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/mayor-london/mayor-and-his-team/role-mayor-london. He's got a £17bn budget, the vast majority of which is transport; as I mentioned above, that's what gets headlines "Routemasters, "Boris Bikes" (procured under Ken Livingstone!), growth of the Overground, Crossrail etc. The role has a duty to London so when Khan keeps banging on about the "impact of X on London", its hardly suprising... London also has 73 constituencies, more than the entirety of Scotland.

He implemented the fares freeze which has done nothing to help TfL’s finances. Arguably that was a fairly irresponsible policy, even if it were not for the pandemic.

Whilst I agree it's populist and short-termist, other parties had also mooted a fares freeze.

And that’s the biggest issue; he doesn’t seem to be actually responsible for anything (admittedly that’s a criticism of the position itself rather than Khan as an individual). The Mayor of London role really is the worst kind of US style “personality politics” - it’s a great shame the position was ever created.

Politics has ultimately moved a lot more that way these decades, I agree its a shame but I don't think its isolated to just London although its probably one of the most recognisable. There's also been this terrible political football of TfL during the pandemic between Labour London & Conservative Westminster which is doing nobody any favours. Grayling also had his spats with Khan regarding rail devolution.

 

[leytongabriel]

I wasn't making that point - although perhaps others were. You can't say its a landslide for one electorate and not another - Khan's electorate is London not the country so its an irrelevant point. He won a "landslide" in London if you want to use the 2019 GE figures as a base. Obviously there are different electoral systems at play (Tory wouldn't have a landslide on 42.4% under some form of proportional representation). The Mayor of London has always been "character" focussed, and whilst I might not like it, that's been part of the role.



https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/mayor-london/mayor-and-his-team/role-mayor-london. He's got a £17bn budget, the vast majority of which is transport; as I mentioned above, that's what gets headlines "Routemasters, "Boris Bikes" (procured under Ken Livingstone!), growth of the Overground, Crossrail etc. The role has a duty to London so when Khan keeps banging on about the "impact of X on London", its hardly suprising... London also has 73 constituencies, more than the entirety of Scotland.



Whilst I agree it's populist and short-termist, other parties had also mooted a fares freeze.



Politics has ultimately moved a lot more that way these decades, I agree its a shame but I don't think its isolated to just London although its probably one of the most recognisable. There's also been this terrible political football of TfL during the pandemic between Labour London & Conservative Westminster which is doing nobody any favours. Grayling also had his spats with Khan regarding rail devolution.

Nothing new in the London v Westminster spats. The old LCC was a constant 'socialist' thorn in the government's side and so was abolished and added to Conservative-voting suburbs to make the GLC in the 60's.This worked for central government for a while but population changes and voting patterns changing with them have put paid to that.

 

[Wolfie]

Nothing new in the London v Westminster spats. The old LCC was a constant 'socialist' thorn in the government's side and so was abolished and added to Conservative-voting suburbs to make the GLC in the 60's.This worked for central government for a while but population changes and voting patterns changing with them have put paid to that.

The GLC itself was abolished by Thatcher for similar reasons.

 

[Snow1964]

Here we go again, within last fortnight of Government assistance.

The TfL Board have a meeting scheduled on Wednesday 2nd February (just 48 hours before expiry of current Government subsidy ends).

Same approach likely, Government negotiates without saying anything in public, mayors office releases horror stories to press.

No doubt another short term bailout, but I can forsee it being bare minimum and about half what TfL wants

 

[43066]

I wasn't making that point - although perhaps others were. You can't say its a landslide for one electorate and not another - Khan's electorate is London not the country so its an irrelevant point. He won a "landslide" in London if you want to use the 2019 GE figures as a base. Obviously there are different electoral systems at play (Tory wouldn't have a landslide on 42.4% under some form of proportional representation).

I realise that, my initial response was framed towards that point.

There are two distinct points here for me:

1. Johnson was elected mayor of London twice. He was then elected PM with a landslide. Clearly both electorates, under both systems, believe (or believed!) he had some credibility. That shows the assertion upthread to be factually incorrect. Nothing wrong with disliking the guy - but call a spade a spade while doing so.

2. How impressive winning any election is is surely proportionate to the size of the electorate? In “top trumps” terms a landslide GE victory is more impressive, and matters a lot more in the grand scheme of things, than becoming mayor of London.

Of course the method of electing the London mayor is based on a first and second preference voting system, which differs from first past the post and makes direct comparisons tricky.

Even typing that out makes me feel utterly depressed at the crop of politicians we currently have to choose from!

He's got a £17bn budget, the vast majority of which is transport; as I mentioned above, that's what gets headlines "Routemasters, "Boris Bikes" (procured under Ken Livingstone!), growth of the Overground, Crossrail etc. The role has a duty to London so when Khan keeps banging on about the "impact of X on London", its hardly suprising... London also has 73 constituencies, more than the entirety of Scotland.

The whole thing is an utter nonsense, the fundamental issue (as with the Scottish government) is the inherent conflict of interests between an elected body being given a budget, which they aren’t entirely responsible for raising (albeit fare income is the biggest single component), by another elected body with different voter allegiances.

My actual preferences at the last mayoral election were:

1. Shaun Bailey
2. Scrap the whole charade and be done with it!

 

[Busaholic]

My actual preferences at the last mayoral election were:

1. Shaun Bailey
2. Scrap the whole charade and be done with it!

Not that I had a vote, but if you'd achieved your first wish I'd have wanted your second wish!

 

[Wolfie]

I realise that, my initial response was framed towards that point.

There are two distinct points here for me:

1. Johnson was elected mayor of London twice. He was then elected PM with a landslide. Clearly both electorates, under both systems, believe (or believed!) he had some credibility. That shows the assertion upthread to be factually incorrect. Nothing wrong with disliking the guy - but call a spade a spade while doing so.

2. How impressive winning any election is is surely proportionate to the size of the electorate? In “top trumps” terms a landslide GE victory is more impressive, and matters a lot more in the grand scheme of things, than becoming mayor of London.

Of course the method of electing the London mayor is based on a first and second preference voting system, which differs from first past the post and makes direct comparisons tricky.

Even typing that out makes me feel utterly depressed at the crop of politicians we currently have to choose from!



The whole thing is an utter nonsense, the fundamental issue (as with the Scottish government) is the inherent conflict of interests between an elected body being given a budget, which they aren’t entirely responsible for raising (albeit fare income is the biggest single component), by another elected body with different voter allegiances.

My actual preferences at the last mayoral election were:

1. Shaun Bailey
2. Scrap the whole charade and be done with it!

Your last para displays your political allegiances all too well.

 

[nw1]

To you perhaps. Many others would disagree. Remind us how many landslide general election victories Khan has won?

"Landslide general election victory" is rather over-stating Johnson's appeal. I'm not even sure a majority of less than 100 could be considered a 'landslide'; it suggests to me overwhelming popular support, and 43% ain't that. He only got a majority of 80, even, due to the first-past-the-post system, not because he commands the support of even half of us.

Khan's 40% in London in the last mayoral election is of the same order as 'Boris's 43% in the last general election. So, in their respective domains, the two command about the same appeal.

 

[Wolfie]

Khan's 40% in London in the last mayoral election is of the same order as 'Boris's 43% in the last general election. So, in their respective domains, the two command about the same appeal.

The only thing that l'd say about the London Mayoral elections, which l did vote in, is that the second preference system means that you can, should you wish, vote a minority party for your first preference while still not having an insurance bet to keep out the one you really don't want.

 

[bramling]

The whole thing is an utter nonsense, the fundamental issue (as with the Scottish government) is the inherent conflict of interests between an elected body being given a budget, which they aren’t entirely responsible for raising (albeit fare income is the biggest single component), by another elected body with different voter allegiances.

My actual preferences at the last mayoral election were:

1. Shaun Bailey
2. Scrap the whole charade and be done with it!

Being a resident of the home counties and thus not part of the mayoralty, I don't get the choice. Which in some ways is just as well, as despite despising Khan, I could not vote for Bailey. This kind of symbolises the state of the Conservatives at the moment - they must have had to work *very* hard to find a candidate who is even more unsavoury than Khan.

If London wishes to be taken seriously, it needs to stop electing odious "maverick" candidates, and make this clear to the political parties so they stop keeping fielding them. I suppose this is another of Blair's legacies, something else which went wrong in that it was expected for Labour to have it, instead Livingstone won and thus ever since there seems to be an unspoken convention of having to be a maverick. Given what we've subsequently had confirmed about Livingstone's character, I'm not sure this is in any way a healthy yardstick.

So it would be #2 for me! With transport being the only area where they mayoralty has any actual power, and that's largely restricted to meddling only, and seeing the current mess it's causing with TfL, it only strengthens my view that the mayoralty should be done away with. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen, as these things are hard to take away once brought in.

The only caveat to add is that as many of TfL's problems trace back to Johnson's tenure as they do Khan's.

 

[Busaholic]

Being a resident of the home counties and thus not part of the mayoralty, I don't get the choice. Which in some ways is just as well, as despite despising Khan, I could not vote for Bailey. This kind of symbolises the state of the Conservatives at the moment - they must have had to work *very* hard to find a candidate who is even more unsavoury than Khan.

If London wishes to be taken seriously, it needs to stop electing odious "maverick" candidates, and make this clear to the political parties so they stop keeping fielding them. I suppose this is another of Blair's legacies, something else which went wrong in that it was expected for Labour to have it, instead Livingstone won and thus ever since there seems to be an unspoken convention of having to be a maverick. Given what we've subsequently had confirmed about Livingstone's character, I'm not sure this is in any way a healthy yardstick.

So it would be #2 for me! With transport being the only area where they mayoralty has any actual power, and that's largely restricted to meddling only, and seeing the current mess it's causing with TfL, it only strengthens my view that the mayoralty should be done away with. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen, as these things are hard to take away once brought in.

The only caveat to add is that as many of TfL's problems trace back to Johnson's tenure as they do Khan's.

Is Khan actually unsavoury rather than ineffective and generally useless? Genuine question, I'm interested to know.

Your last sentence is spot on. Khan, if he had more nous and charisma, would have highlighted this from day one: he was set up to fail, Osborne had made sure of that, despite his distaste for Johnson.

 

[Recessio]

Lads, this meant to be a thread about TfL's financial situation, not politics about the GLA.

Is there any confirmation of capital expenditure/upgraded that *will* still go ahead? I've seen progress on the CLIP (Central Line Improvement Program) is still going ahead.

 

[bramling]

Lads, this meant to be a thread about TfL's financial situation, not politics about the GLA.

Is there any confirmation of capital expenditure/upgraded that *will* still go ahead? I've seen progress on the CLIP (Central Line Improvement Program) is still going ahead.

The problem is the mayor / GLA / TfL are all indelibly linked. Were that not the case, TfL would likely have got its money just like all the provincial metro / tram systems. I say likely, as there may still have been an element of punishing London for voting in Labour MPs, but nowhere near to the same extent as the current circus show.

As for what projects are likely to go ahead, nothing is certain until the final “settlement” is agreed. CLIP is secure as I think that was already funded, and if it doesn’t happen the trains will likely fall to bits. Picc Line fleet replacement is also reasonably secure. Beyond that, nothing definite.

 

[The Ham]

The problem is the mayor / GLA / TfL are all indelibly linked. Were that not the case, TfL would likely have got its money just like all the provincial metro / tram systems. I say likely, as there may still have been an element of punishing London for voting in Labour MPs, but nowhere near to the same extent as the current circus show.

As for what projects are likely to go ahead, nothing is certain until the final “settlement” is agreed. CLIP is secure as I think that was already funded, and if it doesn’t happen the trains will likely fall to bits. Picc Line fleet replacement is also reasonably secure. Beyond that, nothing definite.

The problem for the Tories is that, whilst London is Labour, a LOT of those who use TFL services (even with significant amounts doing a fair amount of WFH) will be blue wall voters from the SE. As such I suspect that come next election there could be a fair number of those voters asking, for example, why their rail services aren't likely to improve any time soon because TfL aren't able to deliver Crossrail 2?

 

[kevin_roche]

Looks like they are starting to cut back at the top too.

TfL executive management team slimmed down

UK: London’s Transport Commissioner Andy Byford has announced a restructuring and reduction in size of Transport for London’s executive team with effect from February 1. TfL said this would be ‘ensure that TfL is in the best possible shape to become an even more efficient organisation focused on...

www.railwaygazette.com

TfL executive management team slimmed down​

London’s Transport Commissioner Andy Byford has announced a restructuring and reduction in size of Transport for London’s executive team with effect from February 1.​

 

[Wolfie]

The problem for the Tories is that, whilst London is Labour, a LOT of those who use TFL services (even with significant amounts doing a fair amount of WFH) will be blue wall voters from the SE. As such I suspect that come next election there could be a fair number of those voters asking, for example, why their rail services aren't likely to improve any time soon because TfL aren't able to deliver Crossrail 2?

Particularly if the same folk see serious transport expenditure up north.....