This page was last edited in London at 0108 GMT on Tuesday 9 September 2008
DEPRIVATION is what the Tories CAUSE. Deprivation is what they support. Deprivation is what they profit from. Deprivation is what they exploit. To make careers out of. And profit from.
So it has been EXPECTED that the Tories !!! on Tower Hamlets Council would not be backing the campaign against the Crossrail hole plot on the East End of London..... For to oppose the Crossrail scam would be to oppose the founding pillars of capitalist corruption...
But that is not to say that the timeserving Tories are even aware of the duplicity of the deprivation system that they back and exploit.
Below is an interview and plug in the Guardian for one of the three Tories whom the local 'East London IDIOTISER' has been promoting if they were not only not Tories of Thatcherism but as if they were were from an outer space unconnected with the millennia of wealth-grabbing crime which the Thatchered Conservatives epitomise and which the Canary Wharf Conservatives actually crave and emulate....
We are here examining [in this series of commentaries] Tim Archer's boastful reference to their role on the Council, as published on the Guardian web site in the past 100 minutes:
"Tim Archer, Poplar and Limehouse
Target seat no 105
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday September 09 2008 00:01 BST
Article history
1. Perception: Do you consider yourself to be a progressive?
"Yes. I'm a Conservative councillor in Tower Hamlets, one of the most deprived parts of the country, and am the parliamentary candidate for the marginal new consistency of Poplar and Limehouse, an east London seat that encompasses the wealth of Canary Wharf and some of the poorest estates in London and the country.
"I've been elected as a councillor in Tower Hamlets, which is a naturally Labour area; before 2004 there had never been a Conservative on the council ever before. In Tower Hamlets the Conservatives are the party fighting for local people to ensure they get a fair deal. We want to make sure that local people have the opportunities to take advantage of the economic engine that's on our doorstep in the form of Canary Wharf.
"We want to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, not by unfair taxation but by giving people the best start in life and the opportunities to make their lives better. For example, Labour have made a small advance in school reform by, for example, the development of local academies. In Tower Hamlets the Labour-run council turned down the offer of £4m from Goldman Sachs to invest in two schools under the academy scheme. I supported this investment as it would bring much needed cash to our local schools and give local children a better start in life. Labour turned down the money as they seem to want to perpetuate the problem of local people not having the opportunities to better themselves. It seems to suit Labour to keep people down. Now which is the more progressive?
"Finally, I was selected as the parliamentary candidate by an open primary, where almost 100 local residents from the East End of London came to choose who they wanted as their candidate."
2. Tax: Should David Cameron offer more tax cuts than he has outlined already?
"By nature Conservatives believe in low taxes, giving people choice over how they spend, invest and save their hard-earned money. It also keeps our economy competitive internationally. We're in difficult economic times so our ability to offer more tax cuts is limited. And with Labour being fresh out of ideas, offering more tax cuts simply gives them more ideas to pinch!"
3. Tax: If yes to the above, do you think they should be funded by
(a) cuts in public spending, or
(b) increases in other taxes
"A combination of both; some taxes are unfair and they should be replaced (inheritance tax, stamp duty for first-time buyers). Some aspects of public spending could be cut, for example the money wasted on the New Deal, which has not delivered."
4. Tax: Should so-called "green" taxes increase?
"True green taxes need to be increased, but not to simply increase the overall tax intake. We need to take the threat to our environment seriously and taxes should be used to encourage environmentally friendly activities."
5. Tax: As a share of GDP tax is currently around 37%. After four years of a Conservative government would you expect it to be:
(a) substantially lower – at least 2 percentage points
(b) slightly lower
(c) much the same as it is now
(d) higher
A.
6 Europe: On balance has Britain lost out or gained from its membership of the EU? If it has lost out, should it withdraw?
"Probably gained, especially in trade, but the EU comes with costs, for example the Lisbon treaty without a referendum, the common agricultural policy, which needs reform."
7. Family: Which of the following statements most reflects your view:
(a) The tax system should be reformed to recognise and promote marriage
(b) The tax system should help parents regardless of their marital status
A.
8. Abortion: The House of Commons recently voted to maintain the upper limit of 24 weeks on abortion. Do you believe it should be reduced? If yes, by how many weeks?
"My personal view is that I would like to see the limit reduced from the current 24 weeks. I would like to see 22 weeks."
Interview by Alexandra Topping
larger | smaller
Politics
Conservatives
Series
The new Tories
Printable version Send to a friend Share Clip Contact us Article history
Related information follows Ads by Google
"
Monday, September 8, 2008
KHOODEELAAR! No to EVENING STANDARD's plugs for CROSSRAIL: Gilligan is a Big Biz Crossrail faker! [101]
This page was last edited at 1920 GMT London Monday 8 September 2008:
KHOODEELAAR! is republishing the following comment piece by-lined to Andrew Gilligan and carried in the print editions of today's London EVENING nostandards STANDARD. Why we are doing so? As part of the evidence that the EVENING nostandards STANDARD is still treating CRASSrail as a cult item and phenomenon,, always to be left out of any critical assessment or evaluation. We note that the Gilligan piece is apparently an objective attack on ken Livingstone's recorded mess at the TfL. Yet the piece makes an exception of CRASSrail. Describing CRASSRAIL as a 'project of real worth'. This is contradictory., and dishonest. Whether this phrase was inserted by Veronica Wadley or whether itv was Gilligan who wrote it himself is not known as yet. But the fact is that the piece is contradictory because of that plug in it for CRASSrail. Assuming that Gilligan wrote it himself, it is clear on that evidence that Gilligan is just as dishonest as anyone else that has been peddling Crassrail... On that evidence, Gilligan's claimed objectivity in the rest fo the item falls. [To be continued]
"
It’s time to turn your attention to TfL, Boris
Andrew Gilligan
08.09.08
Related Articles
Yes, I’m Boris’s chief enforcer – the supertanker is now turning
Boris Johnson launches the revamped Dial-a-Ride bus
M&S boss Stuart Rose to help Mayor attract global investment
Mayor 'going cold on vital scheme for cross-river tram'
How magnificently brazen it was to see Ken Livingstone attacking Boris's TfL fares increase last week.
This rise, of inflation plus one per cent from January 2009, is, of course, the exact same package which the ex-Great Helmsman himself secretly agreed on 24 October last year.
The only difference, as emails leaked to the Standard in April showed, was that to the horror of his officials, Mr Livingstone simply decided to ignore the decision.
We've short memories, Ken, but not that short. And remind me: just which Mayor was it who raised fares by up to one-third in 2007? Would that have been you, or a totally different one?
The real problem is not that Boris has kept Ken's 2009 fares plan but that he has, so far, left almost everything else about Livingstone's TfL intact, too. It's a problem because TfL is the Ed Balls of public administration: nothing like as good as it thinks it is.
It genuinely believes, in the words of its commissioner, Peter Hendy, that it is an “efficient and effective” provider of bus and train services.
In fact, under Livingstone and Hendy's stewardship, it has achieved the worst of all worlds: rapacious fares, vast public subsidy and often mediocre service.
The buses have improved, though at a disproportionate, unsustainable cost (bus subsidy has risen about 1,300 per cent, while passengers have risen about 45 per cent). But the Tube is the least-reliable, worst-managed metro in Western Europe, and is getting worse, not better. It is hard to overstate the damage it does to London's international reputation and to Londoners' blood pressure.
TfL genuinely believes itself a world leader which other cities follow. Actually, other cities are surprised at our backwardness in, for instance, providing clean public transport. Even the buses in Delhi have been using cleaner fuels for years — but London's bus fleet remains 99.9 per cent diesel. In terms of air pollution (different from C02), TfL buses are among the most poisonous things on the road in London today, directly responsible for the deaths of dozens of Londoners each year.
No other city has followed London's model of the congestion charge, for the good reason that it uses crude, old technology and has, partly as a result, stopped reducing congestion.
TfL does, however, lead the world in pointless extravagance, with 123 of its managers earning more than £100,000 a year and fortunes wasted on vanity projects like the “Greenwich Waterfront Transit” (a six-mile bus route — again diesel — costing £20 million). Hence the high fares.
Now, with big bills looming for projects of real worth such as Crossrail, fare rises alone, however necessary, won't pay for everything. The bus and rail services London depends on simply cannot survive at their current levels unless TfL takes a crash diet.
But four months in, marvels one senior TfL figure, “Boris's arrival has made no difference whatever. It's all going on exactly as before.” No programmes have (yet) been cancelled. No personnel changes have been made. Indeed, one senior TfL person has just been appointed, of all things, Boris's environmental adviser.
Less than a year ago, as further leaked emails show, Mr Hendy was secretly plotting with Ken's chief of staff to “refute Boris's transport ideas”. Now, in a truly gymnastic feat of brown-nosing, he has apparently persuaded the new Mayor that his sole purpose in life is to implement those very same ideas.
It's surprising that someone as bright as Boris can fall for this obvious nonsense. What it probably means is not that TfL will end up working for Boris — but that Boris will end up working for TfL.
Link to:
Reader Views (8) Add your view | Show all
Here's a sample of the latest views published. You can click view all to read all views that readers have sent in.
How much do Deloitte make from TFL? Did they assist with the Oyster card that recently crashed and cost us a small fortune?
- Miss Snipe, London
Dear, dear are these the first signs that Andrew might be falling out of love with his creation, tut,tut!
Remember what happened to Dr Frankenstein.
- David, london UK
Have you ever ridden a bus in Delhi? Have you breathed in the smog in that city? What utter tosh.
I don't live in London, but every time I have been there, I have been pleasantly surprised by a well-organised, frequent, low-cost mass transport system. You perhaps forget what it is like to not live in the well-connected Capital city!
TfL is what the rest of the country's transport network needs! Not subsidised, wholly national, national rail!
- Liam Gooderhall, Hooton, United Kingdom
"
KHOODEELAAR! is republishing the following comment piece by-lined to Andrew Gilligan and carried in the print editions of today's London EVENING nostandards STANDARD. Why we are doing so? As part of the evidence that the EVENING nostandards STANDARD is still treating CRASSrail as a cult item and phenomenon,, always to be left out of any critical assessment or evaluation. We note that the Gilligan piece is apparently an objective attack on ken Livingstone's recorded mess at the TfL. Yet the piece makes an exception of CRASSrail. Describing CRASSRAIL as a 'project of real worth'. This is contradictory., and dishonest. Whether this phrase was inserted by Veronica Wadley or whether itv was Gilligan who wrote it himself is not known as yet. But the fact is that the piece is contradictory because of that plug in it for CRASSrail. Assuming that Gilligan wrote it himself, it is clear on that evidence that Gilligan is just as dishonest as anyone else that has been peddling Crassrail... On that evidence, Gilligan's claimed objectivity in the rest fo the item falls. [To be continued]
"
It’s time to turn your attention to TfL, Boris
Andrew Gilligan
08.09.08
Related Articles
Yes, I’m Boris’s chief enforcer – the supertanker is now turning
Boris Johnson launches the revamped Dial-a-Ride bus
M&S boss Stuart Rose to help Mayor attract global investment
Mayor 'going cold on vital scheme for cross-river tram'
How magnificently brazen it was to see Ken Livingstone attacking Boris's TfL fares increase last week.
This rise, of inflation plus one per cent from January 2009, is, of course, the exact same package which the ex-Great Helmsman himself secretly agreed on 24 October last year.
The only difference, as emails leaked to the Standard in April showed, was that to the horror of his officials, Mr Livingstone simply decided to ignore the decision.
We've short memories, Ken, but not that short. And remind me: just which Mayor was it who raised fares by up to one-third in 2007? Would that have been you, or a totally different one?
The real problem is not that Boris has kept Ken's 2009 fares plan but that he has, so far, left almost everything else about Livingstone's TfL intact, too. It's a problem because TfL is the Ed Balls of public administration: nothing like as good as it thinks it is.
It genuinely believes, in the words of its commissioner, Peter Hendy, that it is an “efficient and effective” provider of bus and train services.
In fact, under Livingstone and Hendy's stewardship, it has achieved the worst of all worlds: rapacious fares, vast public subsidy and often mediocre service.
The buses have improved, though at a disproportionate, unsustainable cost (bus subsidy has risen about 1,300 per cent, while passengers have risen about 45 per cent). But the Tube is the least-reliable, worst-managed metro in Western Europe, and is getting worse, not better. It is hard to overstate the damage it does to London's international reputation and to Londoners' blood pressure.
TfL genuinely believes itself a world leader which other cities follow. Actually, other cities are surprised at our backwardness in, for instance, providing clean public transport. Even the buses in Delhi have been using cleaner fuels for years — but London's bus fleet remains 99.9 per cent diesel. In terms of air pollution (different from C02), TfL buses are among the most poisonous things on the road in London today, directly responsible for the deaths of dozens of Londoners each year.
No other city has followed London's model of the congestion charge, for the good reason that it uses crude, old technology and has, partly as a result, stopped reducing congestion.
TfL does, however, lead the world in pointless extravagance, with 123 of its managers earning more than £100,000 a year and fortunes wasted on vanity projects like the “Greenwich Waterfront Transit” (a six-mile bus route — again diesel — costing £20 million). Hence the high fares.
Now, with big bills looming for projects of real worth such as Crossrail, fare rises alone, however necessary, won't pay for everything. The bus and rail services London depends on simply cannot survive at their current levels unless TfL takes a crash diet.
But four months in, marvels one senior TfL figure, “Boris's arrival has made no difference whatever. It's all going on exactly as before.” No programmes have (yet) been cancelled. No personnel changes have been made. Indeed, one senior TfL person has just been appointed, of all things, Boris's environmental adviser.
Less than a year ago, as further leaked emails show, Mr Hendy was secretly plotting with Ken's chief of staff to “refute Boris's transport ideas”. Now, in a truly gymnastic feat of brown-nosing, he has apparently persuaded the new Mayor that his sole purpose in life is to implement those very same ideas.
It's surprising that someone as bright as Boris can fall for this obvious nonsense. What it probably means is not that TfL will end up working for Boris — but that Boris will end up working for TfL.
Link to:
Reader Views (8) Add your view | Show all
Here's a sample of the latest views published. You can click view all to read all views that readers have sent in.
How much do Deloitte make from TFL? Did they assist with the Oyster card that recently crashed and cost us a small fortune?
- Miss Snipe, London
Dear, dear are these the first signs that Andrew might be falling out of love with his creation, tut,tut!
Remember what happened to Dr Frankenstein.
- David, london UK
Have you ever ridden a bus in Delhi? Have you breathed in the smog in that city? What utter tosh.
I don't live in London, but every time I have been there, I have been pleasantly surprised by a well-organised, frequent, low-cost mass transport system. You perhaps forget what it is like to not live in the well-connected Capital city!
TfL is what the rest of the country's transport network needs! Not subsidised, wholly national, national rail!
- Liam Gooderhall, Hooton, United Kingdom
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)