An entirely valid point. The argument could be made that, for 30-odd years, to some extent or other, big business and big finance have been in power.

You pays your money!!

That's not what democracy means, though.

In fact, quite the opposite.

Good to know where you stand though, Sal.

What does democracy mean - the will of the majority?

For a start <70% of those eligible to vote did so of those - of those only 10.7m voted for the Tories so 36% of those that i.e. 36% of 65% turnout giving 24% of the total eligible to vote - hardly the will of the majority?

Are you suggesting bigger business should be ignored?

I am sure you liked it more when the likes of Jack Jones and Gormley told Harold what to do - more your cup of tea!!

Yet your mates in government and the idiot in charge of London, would like to ignore a trades union strike decision unless a majority of the members, not the voters, decide to strike.

The irony of representation is lost on them

[url=http://www.ukip.org/media/policies/UKIPhealth.pdfUKIP's policy on the NHS[/url pdf

Page three (contents), Item 5: they can't even spell their own name

Agreed - although I would say London is a better place without Ken and his cronies on ridiculously high salaries - typical high up lefties!! all for the people, once they are suitably looked after - it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

On unions - the only thing I don't like is non-union members being expected to follow whatever the union has decided and being called scabs because they defy a decision that they had no part in. If you are a member and you don't vote that is your own fault and you should abide by the decision.

Boris has increased public transport fares by something like 100% in his time in office. The cheapest single fare in London is now £2.40.

A great help to everyone.

No. I'm suggesting that the country should not be governed on behalf of them/so as not to offend them.

So, for instance, public health policy being, in effect, handed over to big business in a sort of 'well, let's sit down and talk together about how Unilever and Pepsico can help work out how to tackle obesity etc etc'.

And then we end up with the taxpayer effectively funding [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/meaty-advice-thats-tough-to-chew.htmladverts for these huge companies in the guise of public health advice[/url.

We've seen, in the horsemeat scandal to the banking crisis, what a lack of proper regulation, properly enforced means.

It's the same in big pharma, where massive corporations refuse to release all trial data to doctors to allow them, and their patients, to make fully informed decisions on medical treatments. What is required is robust regulation, properly enforced.

But this government – and others – are now so scared of the supranational corporatocracy that they back away from doing anything meaningful, while much of the media continues to ply the myth that the key to growth, for instance, is less regulation.

I don't have a problem with that, providing non-union labour refuse to accept any benefits & safeguards negotiated on their behalf by the unions

Why does it have to be such a binary choice?

As I have said before on this forum, capitalism is like fire and water ... a good servant but a terrible master.
Capitalism and business are what has brought us the money to live a decent life but when capitalism and business are pushing people into poverty, it's past the time to address the balance.
Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown were all in thrall to business and, instead of addressing the balance, Cameron is determined to make us pay for it and smash the way we look after those who need looking after.

That is also OK as long as the union don't cry foul if non-union members are afforded more advantageous t&c?

Who is to say that would not have happened under Ken - what is driving higher charges, higher wages? increases in electricty costs, increased investment in infrastructure/stock, H&S improvements.

How do you suggest this is paid for?

We have in Stafford/Barrow etc that the public sector is hardly any better - sadly this is lost in your miopic view!!

The private sector is ultimately where all the money is generated, you cannot ignore it, it is a balancing act to extract the maximum tax revenues whilst still leaving companies with sufficient opportunities/cashflow to make the UK an attractive option. On tax the UK government cannot work in isolation most of these huge corporations are global and have the resources to minimise what they pay.

We have had the discussions around drugs previously - on the whole the drug companies do a good job, they will never be squeaky clean - they are in a commercial environment where data is everything. They invest billions in new treatments - look at what progress has been made over the past 20 years in clinical care and much of the improvement is down to advances in drug treatment.

When I moved to London years ago Ken Livingston had introduced the "Fairs fare" scheme on public transport in London. In Sheffield there was a similar idea where it cost you 5p to go anywhere on a bus and the provision of very regular, coordinated local authority run bus service. The effect of these schemes was quite dramatic. For example in Sheffield car usage and congestion dropped considerably and the schemes were very popular with locals.

They were subsidised services paid for by your local taxes but they were killed off by Thatcher who used the typical right wing argument of you should not pay for what you don't use so in her tiny mind the fact a minority of people in Sheffield didn't use public transport was reason enough to ride roughshod over the democratic will of the local electorate.

The point of all that to this discussion is the cost of public transport can be met in different ways. It's an ideological choice if you like. Under the schemes I mentioned the cost of use was very low and didn't cover the running costs which were covered by local taxes. Under Boris he would never go far enough down the subsidy route because he is politically opposed to it. So when you ask what is driving up costs one of the main reasons is political. Boris will say it has to pay for itself and when that happens public transport becomes expensive at the point of use.

Having seen first hand how those subsidised schemes worked and also noting a majority of the local electorate were in favour I can say for certain the subsidised model works far better. It is just far more efficient and has the effect of persuading people out of their cars and reduces congestion. Of course reduced congestion can't be entered into a spread sheet so all the likes of Thatcher ever looked at was the net cost not the bigger picture.

Along with not removing the ban on councils being able to reinvest the money from the sale of council houses into new builds not removing the block on councils "doing a Sheffield" is another of the things I am very surprised Labour governments didn't repeal when in power.

You need to look again and preferably have a chat with someone who works for or with these large drug companies. For starters, they are not interested in investing in much-needed cures as treatments are far more profitable. And some of the tactics used to promote their products regardless of suitability for the patient goes so far beyond 'squeaky clean' that they can't even see it in the distance.

Prime example at the moment? Antibiotics. There's a huge need for new classes of antibiotic to address the resistance being built up to the current types, and yet there is very little research being done. Why? Because antibiotics are taken in short courses and result in a cure, but things like blood pressure tablets (for instance) are generally taken for a lifetime - making far more profit. The fact that antibiotic resistance is a far larger public health issue is irrelevant to them.

Thank you for throwing in something utterly unrelated to the topic under discussion.



I haven't even remotely suggested that the private sector is not where money is generated. Although if one looks beyond your myopic (note spelling) view, one could understand that it wouldn't make as much money without education and health care and transport infrastructure and refuse collection – etc etc etc.

However, as I said, I hadn't mentioned that.

I haven't mentioned tax.

So try to read what has actually been posted and not what you want or expect it to read.

Ken wouldn't have introduced a new Routemaster (that actually isn't a Routemaster at all), he liked the bendybuses that Boris is scrapping rather than allowing to see out their service before replacement.
This is the Routemaster superbus that was supposed to be private funded but ended up being paid for by the TfL traveller, estimated at £180m by the time they're all in service, but don't hold your breath as the costs are going up and very few buses appearing.
TfL is having to pay for and own the buses because the operators don't actually want them and will henceforth charge for just operating them ... oh and TfL will pay the extra for conductors required.

Then there's the £15m that TfL paid out for the dead-duck cable car across the Thames (for which TfL refuse to publish the fares they take, but it can't be much, it's only attracting 300 passengers a day).
Again, this was meant to be privately financed but the £15m was paid by TfL travellers in addition to the £6m pa in operating costs ... only the profits are private.

Boris has also doubled (yes, doubled, in one price hike) the cost of renting a Boris Bike ... as I recall the doubling was about inflation x 30.
The scheme is going to be rolled out to Western suburbs but Fulham and Hammersmith and others are going to have to fork out £2m apiece (because Barclays can't afford the £50m they said they'd put in for sponsorship and have only stumped-up £13m).

So, apart from just splashing the cash in a profligate manner, Boris also has to toe the Coailition line and reduce costs hugely ... hence price rises.

As I recall, when Ken refused to increase fares, Maggie abolished his council.
So, all in all, I think that transport was top of Ken's list for keeping.

I suppose the thing that needs to be considered is what % of the local population use public transport and then decide is subsidising it the best use of local taxes?

On London maybe you could have two levels of charge - a rate for residents and a rate for non residents. I am unclear as to why I should benefit from lower costs as I don't make any contribution?

In London ... 41% in 2009.
By cars etc, another 37%.
But you have to wonder how many use their cars because they are not near a tube and would happily take the tube or train if a station was nearer (I guess this means a large swathe of South London).
<Edit> Plus, of course, because those 41% are not in cars, those who are in cars can actually get somewhere.<Edit end>


Whoah there, I have worked on several projects in London where I was there Mon-Fri, would that include me as a non-resident then?

You do make a contribution, TfL receives a government grant each year of around £2.8bn

Do you pay council tax in London? No so you are not a resident simple.

You haven't answered the question - if costs rise - salaries are rising by 3.8% starting in April 2013 how is that paid for if you do not increase fares?

He hasn't answered the question?

He just detailed a shedload of vanity projects that were completely unnecessary and have had to be funded by fare increases

Irony alert.