Ken effing Livingstone

Former Member · August 2002

Originally posted by Man Of Kent

So the two aren't connected?

-No

The fact that you choose to live and work within London has no effect on you needing to use London's public transport then?

-Not relevant to discussing the state of London's transport.

Not sure why this tangent, but no this isn't what I suggested. If you choose to live and work in an area of high population density, you cannot complain about fact that there are lots of people wanting to use the same services as you do.

-But I can complain about the state of that service if it is below standard.

Er...perhaps because I am willing to live with the consequences of my personal choices.

-It was a facetious point, pointing out how ludicrous your initial point was.

The major cause of overcrowding is the number of people who want to use the service. Why do they choose to use the service?

-Because there is no viable alternative.

Yes, trains break down. It happens and even new trains would do so. As do cars, buses and any other form of transportation.

-Right. So we shouldn't improve outdated trains? Newer trains and signals would break down less. Just like any other form of transport.

You talk about not getting your money's worth. Well, where should the additional funding required to update the system come from? You know that you aren't talking small numbers here so who should fund the massive increase that would be required to achieve this aim.

-I'm not putting forward a solution. I'm saying it needs improving. We all pay taxes. We all pay our fares. It needs updating, and it's not for me to say how.

Isn't that what PPP is all about (and no, I don't really support the system suggested), but apart from private finance, where else can the funding come from?

-See above.

The comparison is very relevant because it one of the alternative options. When considering transport it is foolish to look at each in isolation, because of the effect each has on the others. Look at the traffic problems during a rail strike.

-It's not relevant because I am talking about the state of the underground, and whether it provides a good service. At the moment it doesn't, no matter what other options there are.

So why was the cost brought up, if it isn't relevant?

-You said cost isn't prohibitive compared to other options. This is not relevant. The amount we pay for a sub-standard service is relevant. If it was free for example, I'd have a lot less to complain about. But I am a paying customer who does not get what he paid for a lot of the time.

For the cost that exists to date, you do get a very good service - for £1k per year you can travel on the Tube at any time throughout the day. That equates to £3 per day. Hardly excessive is it?

-Not excessive. But that's theoretical. Not much use to me when my train's stuck in a tunnel, or cancelled etc.

What do you expect for that, other than a service which gets you to your destination - the majority of times whithout much fuss. Not bad when you consider the number of people having to be transported at any time.

-I expect to get to my destination on time. I expect delays to be minimal. This is not the case.

You are right, they aren't. One gets massive attention.

Can't hear the people of Manchester shouting too much about their services, can you?

-This is not a thread about Manchester.

Not at all, but equally I don't think that you should expect so much national concern (on a national forum) about what is in effect a reasonable service, when compared to the rest of the country.

-This is a thread about London. Why would I comment on Manchester or anywhere else.

Also, the thread is about a new scheme in London. Is the same happening in Manchester or elsewhere?

Feel free to complain, just don't get upset when other people point out that really you have little to complain about.

-Fair enough. But my complaints have been fully justified, and the majority of people would agree with them. It is a substandard service, and has not been improved over the last 40 odd years despite extra pressures on the system.

I can't really see where you've justified that I have little to complain about. The majority of your argument has been 'well, it could be worse'. Which to be honest, isn't a very good argument. There is plenty to complain about, as I think is pretty clear to most people.

Former Member · August 2002

Originally posted by Man Of Kent

So the two aren't connected? The fact that you choose to live and work within London has no effect on you needing to use London's public transport then?

Not neccesarily, because a large proportion of users are not from London.

Perhaps we should ban all people who don't live in London from using the service. That would free up loads of space

Former Member · August 2002

I can't really see where you've justified that I have little to complain about. The majority of your argument has been 'well, it could be worse'. Which to be honest, isn't a very good argument. There is plenty to complain about, as I think is pretty clear to most people.

- Crystal

I think we have a budding Ken campaigner in our mists

Former Member · August 2002

Originally posted by TJK
I can't really see where you've justified that I have little to complain about. The majority of your argument has been 'well, it could be worse'. Which to be honest, isn't a very good argument. There is plenty to complain about, as I think is pretty clear to most people.

- Crystal

I think we have a budding Ken campaigner in our mists

Well, it all got a bit off the point here really. I was just initially trying to say that I wouldn't condemn people for driving to work, and before charging people to drive, the underground should be a more appetising prospect. If it was improved, then there would be more of a case for charging people, and trying to force them to use it. Seems a bit unfair to me otherwise.

Also, how is the charging system going to work? Are there going to be toll booths or something at a certain radius from the centre?

(By the way TJK, if it takes more muscles to frown than smile, in today's keep fit culture wouldn't it be better for us to frown? Are people who smile lazy?)

Former Member · August 2002

Originally posted by RubberSkin
Too true MOK. Try Birmingham.

Must we?!

. Appaling state of buses and trains, rarely cleaned and old stock.

Must admit THE most spectacularly fifthy bus I`ve ever seen or been on in my life was in Birmingham.

Former Member · August 2002

(By the way TJK, if it takes more muscles to frown than smile, in today's keep fit culture wouldn't it be better for us to frown? Are people who smile lazy?)

- Lazy as hell

The best thing is to go to the gym, run and frown at the same time

Former Member · August 2002

Originally posted by TJK
(By the way TJK, if it takes more muscles to frown than smile, in today's keep fit culture wouldn't it be better for us to frown? Are people who smile lazy?)

- Lazy as hell
The best thing is to go to the gym, run and frown at the same time

Well, whenever I do exercise I'm generally not smiling, so that's good to know!

I'll start a few more arguments with my girlfriend as well. For her own good of course.

Ken effing Livingstone

Comments