0650 GMT 0750 Hrs UK Time London Tuesday 9 September 2008:
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! A year ago, ALMOST to the day [ today is 9 September 2008 and a year ago THIS week on Friday 7 September 2007], KHOODEELAAR! did an actin archive on THIS KHOODEELAAR! site and discussed, amongst other things, the role [however small] played by Francis Maude [MP], then the UK Conservative Party ‘leader’ [ April 2006] who had stated his PARTY’s OPPOSITION to the Crossrail hole in the Brick Lane, London E1 area.......
And yesterday, 8 September 2008, we came to be aware that today’s Guardian was to publish the item promoting Tory councillor Tim Archer. We have already this morning [Tuesday 9 September 2008] begun to focus on Archer’s untrustworthiness..... And we are going to continue the examination of his dubious and lethally anti-community role on Tower Hamlets Council. Before we get to that stage, it is vital to remind visitors of what we had said on 7 September 2007.
ACTION Archive against Crossrail attack on the East end of London: AADHIKARonline report on the Crossrail hole plotter Ken Livingstone 26.04.2006
London mayor Livingstone obstructs Khoodeelaar! No to Crossrail hole
Within minutes [on Monday 24 April 2006] of AADHIKARonline reporting the Conservative Party Chair Francis Maude’s backing to Khoodeelaar! No to Crossrail hole Bill campaign, London Mayor Ken Livingstone had his office send a strange communication to Khoodeelaar! The legal and democratic significance of the Ken Livingstone communication are enormous, especially in the last week before the scheduled local elections on 4 May 2006
1. Within minutes [on Monday 24 April 2006] of AADHIKARonline reporting the Conservative Party Chair Francis Maude’s backing to Khoodeelaar! No to Crossrail hole Bill campaign, London Mayor Ken Livingstone had his office send a strange communication to Khoodeelaar! The legal and democratic significance of the Ken Livingstone communication are enormous, especially in the last week before the scheduled local elections on 4 May 2006
2. That communication from the head of Ken Livingstone’s transport department, effectively says that the Khoodeelaar! demands for Ken Livingstone to make full disclosure of all his communications with the clique of corrupt controllers of Tower Hamlets Council are too expensive for the London Mayor to comply with !
3. There is no specific item that the London Mayor has identified in his mayor communication to Khoodeelaar on Monday 24 April 2006 as constituting an allegedly over-the-permitted limit of administration cost request under the Freed of Information Act.
4. The key point is that Khoodeelaar! the campaign against the CrossRail hole Bill attacks plan on the Brick Lane London E1 area, has been issuing ken Livingstone with a series of pre-action [letter before claim] communications and the London mayor has now run out of excuses.
5. At the centre of the Khoodeelaar legal action claims against Ken Livingstone lies in the fact that the mayor has persistently misled Londoners generally and the UK Parliament through his undisclosed deals with the Transport Department and in particular the people of the East End community affected by the CrossRail hole plan.
6. Khoodeelaar! delivered the first demand to ken Livingstone for confirming a number of facts that were linked with the mayor’s release of a news item on 24 March 2006.
7. That was followed within a day or two by other calls on Livingstone to disclose the facts of his dealing with the controlling clique on Tower Hamlets Council.
8. It was again repeated by Khoodeelaar! no to Crossrail hole campaign updating their calls on Livingstone to deal with the factual questions that arose about the stunt from the written statement about the CrossRail hole Bill that was issued in the UK House of Commons by CrossRail hole Minister Alistair Darling on 30 March 2006.
9. The mayor is on record as having touted for the enlisting of the ‘leaders’ and ‘lead members’ of a number of local councils, including the then leader of Tower Hamlets Council [Helal Uddin Abbas] in February 2004 as part of the Livingstone lobby for CrossRail plan.
10. In a Crossrail-hole-plan promotional ‘letter’ published in 2004 under the name of Ken Livingstone together with the names of Helal Uddin Abbas and others from other local Councils, the promotion of CrossRail was made without a single qualification let alone reservation.
11. Khoodeelaar! immediately wrote to both Livingstone and demanded that the Evening Standard publish the truth about the CrossRail hole plan. Khoodeelaar! campaign organiser Muhammad Haque told the Editor of the London EVENING STANDARD that their failure to publish the truth about the CrossRail plan [as it still was - because the CrossRail hole Bill was not put before the House of Commons until 22 February 2005, almost a year after Khoodeelaar! campaign organiser Muhammad Haque was having the series of demands put on Ken Livingstone and Christine Gilbert to tell the truth of their then role in promoting the CrossRail plan. The EVENING STANDARD failed to publish the truth. As did Ken Livingstone.
12.
That was in February 2004.
13. Khoodeelaar! Organiser Muhammad Haque also wrote to Tower Hamlets Council chief Executive Christine Gilbert in February 2004 and in March 2004 asking for a series of detailed answers to questions about her own role in promoting the CrossRail hole plan including the question as to what advice, if any, had she, Christine Gilbert, given to the ruling clique or group on the Tower Hamlets Council. There was no reply. There has been no reply.
14. When Khoodeelaar! issued the latest then updated series of legal claims against Alistair Darling, ken Livingstone, Christine Gilbert and a few others and said that the application to the High Court in London against them would be filed on Monday 27 March 2006, a number of things immediately happened.
15. Ken Livingstone suddenly issued a news release on 24 March 2006 saying that the CrossRail Dirt hole in the Brick Lane London E1 had been scrapped!
16. And that Ken Livingstone Crossrail-Dirt-hole plan against Brick Lane London E1 area scrapping stunt announcement was then used as the peg for the evening TV news which featured the entire cabal of self-seeking politicos doing their fame slots and assorted other fantasies. They were given more time than Khoodeelaar! campaign organiser Muhammad Haque who did say on the record [BBC London News, Friday 24 April 2006] that as far as Khoodeelaar! Was concerned, they had immediately asked Livingstone to substantiate the claims of the scrapping of the Crossrail Dirty hole plan and demanded that Livingstone to answer the outstanding detailed KHOODELAAR! no to CrossRail hole questions that had been put to him as based on his unqualified plugs for the CrossRail plan over the previous years
17. Accordingly, Muhammad Haque and Khoodeelaar! campaign sent the detailed further questions immediately and also went to City hall on Monday 3 April 2006 and delivered a series of questions for Livingstone to deal with.
18. On the same occasion [3 April 2006] Khoodeelaar demonstrated the campaign’s opposition to Ken Livingstone’s role so far and demanded that Livingstone come out with the overdue answers to the extensive and the very comprehensive KHOODEELAAR! No to the Crossrail hole questions which had arisen from Livingstone’s stunt staged on Friday 24 March 2006 about the alleged scrapping of the CrossRail Dirt hole.
19. Livingstone remained silent
20. Until the AADHIKARonline news carried the first detailed transcripts of the Khoodeelaar! Organiser’s Questions and answers encounter with Conservative party chair Francis Maude in Brick Lane in the mid afternoon of Monday 24 April 2006.
21. Ken Livingstone’s head of Transports sent an e-mail which is full of typical Ken Livingstone’s dissembling. The concept of dissembling as associated with ken Livingstone on 24 April 2006 had already been spotted and identified a month previously [on Friday 24 March 2006] out by Khoodeelaar organiser Muhammad Haque in his news interview with the BBC London political editor Tim Donovan on that date [Friday 24 March 2006].
[KHOODEELAAR! ACTION UPDATE To be continued along with our examination of the role being played by the Tories, typified by Tim Archer. on the Crossrail hole plot-backer Tower Hamlets Council]
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
KHOODEELAAR! No to 'Crossrail hole plot' Big Business agenda CAMPAIGN exposes the Tory Councillor Tim Archer [102 C]
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
"
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
"
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
"
Sunday, September 7, 2008
KHOODEELAAR Constitutional law action against “Crossrail hole plot ...’ CAMPAIGN, UPDATE of evidence [101]
This page of AADHIKARonline was last edited at 0445 GMT 0545 Hrs UK Time London Monday 8 September 2008.
KHOODEELAAR Constitutional law action against “Crossrail hole plot ...’ CAMPAIGN, UPDATE of evidence [101]. Those who are actually familiar with the UK domestic court system! will know of the huge amount of work that has to be done before any actual applications are made to a court... The same applies to KHOODEELAAR! legal and constitutional law action programme... For 4 years and 8 months, we have waited for them to give us answers to the questions that we have put to them.... We have tried again by updating them on those [as visitor to our web web sites, blogs and publicity pages on the internet will be aware]. When we did get a single communication claiming that they have answered, we looked through our files. The result is that the following reply has now been sent to the Tower Hamlets Council this morning [Monday 8 september 2008]: “We have not found answers to our questions in anything that you or any other person representing the tower hamlets borough council has sent to us in the 4 years and 8 months of our campaign so far. This is the reason for the delay in our sending you this reply. We have looked for and thought about the possibility of finding answers to our questions. Answers from TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. But in vain. The council has never answered our questions.This will now be of course sought - the answers that is - via the courts, as you are aware. I say this in view of your legal section decision to ask you to await our proposed court actions. The court actions have been delayed so far partly in order to give yourselves the one conclusive opportunity to give us the answers to all the outstanding questions. It is clear that
‘the Council’ prefers to have the matter dealt with by the court system. I point out that this will be one component of our claim, that the Council is causing court actions to be taken rather than give us the answers.The costs implications of this behaviour will be stressed in all relevant representation and actions by Khoodeelaar! Yours sincerely
Muhammad Haque Organiser KHOODEELAAR!
0420 Hrs GMT London Monday 8 September 2008
KHOODEELAAR Constitutional law action against “Crossrail hole plot ...’ CAMPAIGN, UPDATE of evidence [101]. Those who are actually familiar with the UK domestic court system! will know of the huge amount of work that has to be done before any actual applications are made to a court... The same applies to KHOODEELAAR! legal and constitutional law action programme... For 4 years and 8 months, we have waited for them to give us answers to the questions that we have put to them.... We have tried again by updating them on those [as visitor to our web web sites, blogs and publicity pages on the internet will be aware]. When we did get a single communication claiming that they have answered, we looked through our files. The result is that the following reply has now been sent to the Tower Hamlets Council this morning [Monday 8 september 2008]: “We have not found answers to our questions in anything that you or any other person representing the tower hamlets borough council has sent to us in the 4 years and 8 months of our campaign so far. This is the reason for the delay in our sending you this reply. We have looked for and thought about the possibility of finding answers to our questions. Answers from TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. But in vain. The council has never answered our questions.This will now be of course sought - the answers that is - via the courts, as you are aware. I say this in view of your legal section decision to ask you to await our proposed court actions. The court actions have been delayed so far partly in order to give yourselves the one conclusive opportunity to give us the answers to all the outstanding questions. It is clear that
‘the Council’ prefers to have the matter dealt with by the court system. I point out that this will be one component of our claim, that the Council is causing court actions to be taken rather than give us the answers.The costs implications of this behaviour will be stressed in all relevant representation and actions by Khoodeelaar! Yours sincerely
Muhammad Haque Organiser KHOODEELAAR!
0420 Hrs GMT London Monday 8 September 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
KHOODEELAAR! exposing ANOTHER central lie used by Crossrail hole agenda peddlers on the East End of London [97]
This page was last edited at
0430 GMT 0530 Hrs UK Time London Sunday 7 September 2008
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! The lie that Big Business agenda is based on and the lie that the peddlers of the Crossrail hole plot have been using in all their promotions and lobbying, is that the scam will 'also' 'bring benefits' 'to local people'. They have been perpetrating the lie that JOBS will be available to the people, fo the East End. Ordinary people in the ordinary community. We have said all along that the lie is untenable. That the lie is deliberate and is part of the fraud to get the crassly conceived scam through... That it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. That their lie is part and parcel of their strategy that was used inside the two Houses of UK Parliament by BIg Business that covered up the truth and lied.........That the lie is exposed in the following jobs and recruitment propaganda piece carried ion one of the construction conglomerates web sites: NOTE the words they use for prospective jobseekers on Crossrail, the 2012 Olympics Games hosting sites and structures ...."particularly those who are qualified and are working towards Chartered status." [To be continued]
0430 GMT 0530 Hrs UK Time London Sunday 7 September 2008
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! The lie that Big Business agenda is based on and the lie that the peddlers of the Crossrail hole plot have been using in all their promotions and lobbying, is that the scam will 'also' 'bring benefits' 'to local people'. They have been perpetrating the lie that JOBS will be available to the people, fo the East End. Ordinary people in the ordinary community. We have said all along that the lie is untenable. That the lie is deliberate and is part of the fraud to get the crassly conceived scam through... That it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. That their lie is part and parcel of their strategy that was used inside the two Houses of UK Parliament by BIg Business that covered up the truth and lied.........That the lie is exposed in the following jobs and recruitment propaganda piece carried ion one of the construction conglomerates web sites: NOTE the words they use for prospective jobseekers on Crossrail, the 2012 Olympics Games hosting sites and structures ...."particularly those who are qualified and are working towards Chartered status." [To be continued]
Friday, September 5, 2008
KHOODEELAAR! No to "pro-imperialist, pro-colonialist Big Business media myths against the people targeted by poverty-creating Crossrail hole plotters”
This page was last edited at 2205 GMT London Friday 5 september 2008
For a second time in the past few months, the Rupert Murdoch-owned ed London times newspaper has SUPPRESSED comments critical of the City of London interests as contained in the pieces published with the by-line of Martin Waller, who ‘normally’ presents himself as the ‘City Diarist’..
There are comments accompanying his latest piece concerned. But not those that tell the truth about the role being played by the Big Business backing media.
We shall go into the details of the role being played by the likes of Martin Waller in boosting the image of the Big Business ...
We shall also look at someone else given a job on the same Murdoch owned Times. That someone else is passable as an almost credible member of what could be called the calling of 'journalism !!!!'. She is Camilla Cavendish. She boasts of having lived - and ‘worked’ - in Bangladesh. And comes across as if she knows Tower Hamlets as a 'resident'.
Here is here latest piece that refers to both [Bangladesh and Tower Hamlets]:
"
From The Times mSeptember 4, 2008 Britain 2028: we need ten new cities, please
Our approach to immigration is unsustainable. We must either cap numbers or introduce a tough guest worker scheme
Camilla Cavendish
I came back from holiday in the vast calm of Burgundy to find that the UK will have the largest population in Europe by 2060, on half the land area of France. Sharif told me this while he was doing my hair. He thinks it would be “crazy, darlink, so sweaty, and just not fair”. But he also worries that his Polish builders will go home and leave him with Albanians who are less cute and who have apparently acquired the English tea-break mentality, but not much English.
We have become completely contradictory about migration. We are alarmed by the numbers of people reaching these shores, yet suddenly afraid that they might pack up and leave. Can we afford to lose energetic people who have helped to drive the economy? Can we afford to keep them? How many is too many?
First, the stats. If there is any certainty at all in population projections, it is that a 50-year EU projection is bound to be wrong. So I dug out the Government's 20-year forecast. It's stunning. The Office for National Statistics expects Britain's population to rise by ten million, seven million from immigration. That would require the building of ten big cities. Yet the Government has no plan for housing the numbers it is apparently planning to accept, nor for providing the services they would need. Already, half the babies in London's maternity wards have foreign-born mothers. That doesn't make any baby worth any less. But those of us who have given birth in the capital in recent years know that midwives are dangerously variable in quality and that hospitals are so overstretched that women are being turned away from hospital to give birth on the kitchen floor.
Will a recession empty the wards and leave our dynamic economy bereft of talent? Probably not. The significance of the Polish exodus has been overblown because of the assumption that Eastern Europeans are a majority of those coming here. Yet they have never been. Even in 2004, when the Government opened Britain's doors to the new EU accession countries, of the 940,000 people who came here legally only a third were from the EU. Over the past 15 years more than 90 per cent of legal arrivals have been from non-EU countries.
This gives the lie to the pretence that the Government cannot restrict the numbers entering Britain. The fourfold rise in official immigration in the past decade can be explained largely by deliberate policy. In 1997 the abolition of the Primary Purpose Rule removed the restriction that required applicants to show that they were not just marrying to enter the UK. In 1998 the abolition of embarkation controls ended any effective record of who came in and out. In 2002 the number of work permits was doubled. The Government now claims to have created an “Australian-style points system” to keep out the low-skilled, but it is Australia-lite. Australia sets an annual limit on numbers, then takes those with the most points. The British have no such limit.
Much of our contradictory approach is because while we appreciate the undoubted skills of foreign doctors and builders, we are less enthusiastic about handing out lifetime entitlements to unprecedented numbers of people merely on the basis that they are here, legitimately or not. It is clear that immigration has brought much-needed wealth, ideas and energy into the British economy. It is less clear, over time, how to balance economic benefits against the value of state ones.
The answer may be to decouple the two. There is no cast-iron reason, for example, why immigrants who have been here for five years should automatically acquire a permanent right to remain. Nor is it axiomatic that they should have the same entitlements as British citizens. Many countries with open borders refuse to give immigrants equal rights. When I lived in Bangladesh I met many families whose income came from guest worker relatives in Kuwait and Jordan. During the Gulf War, the sheer number of disgruntled returnees astonished me. For me, the term “guest worker” was flush with imperial exploitation. But these people were just grateful that they could earn. They did not expect additional benefits. They were keen to get back, even to Singapore - which expels guest workers if they become pregnant.
The guest worker concept is unpalatable in many ways. But it may be fairer than shutting people out altogether. The US economist Lant Pritchett has called guest work a liberal solution to the problem of the “irresistible forces of global migration” coming up against the West's “immovable ideas” of nationhood.
I raise the issue because it seems clear to me that our current approach is both undemocratic and unsustainable. When the official figures point exponentially upward - and the official figures are a woeful underestimate because they fail to capture the illegals - we are in danger of stretching the social contract to breaking point. People are getting angry, and they will get angrier if the recessionary tide leaves ever more foreigners claiming benefits here.
The alternative to a guest worker system, which feels more British, would be to offer every legitimate worker equal rights - to benefits, at least, if not to permanent residency. But in this overcrowded island, this will only work if there is some kind of cap on numbers. Come to Tower Hamlets and see people living eight to a room. Spot the secret doors cut into buildings which have been divided up into grim tenements, like the old Jewish ghettos. Many of these people earn below the minimum wage and some are trafficked. It is inhuman. I believe we face a choice: between open borders and guest workers, or closed borders and fewer workers. To continue to pretend that we do not, as recession looms, may prove politically dangerous. The immigration issue is now spatial, not racial. And the fairest solutions may be those that look the least liberal.
"
For a second time in the past few months, the Rupert Murdoch-owned ed London times newspaper has SUPPRESSED comments critical of the City of London interests as contained in the pieces published with the by-line of Martin Waller, who ‘normally’ presents himself as the ‘City Diarist’..
There are comments accompanying his latest piece concerned. But not those that tell the truth about the role being played by the Big Business backing media.
We shall go into the details of the role being played by the likes of Martin Waller in boosting the image of the Big Business ...
We shall also look at someone else given a job on the same Murdoch owned Times. That someone else is passable as an almost credible member of what could be called the calling of 'journalism !!!!'. She is Camilla Cavendish. She boasts of having lived - and ‘worked’ - in Bangladesh. And comes across as if she knows Tower Hamlets as a 'resident'.
Here is here latest piece that refers to both [Bangladesh and Tower Hamlets]:
"
From The Times mSeptember 4, 2008 Britain 2028: we need ten new cities, please
Our approach to immigration is unsustainable. We must either cap numbers or introduce a tough guest worker scheme
Camilla Cavendish
I came back from holiday in the vast calm of Burgundy to find that the UK will have the largest population in Europe by 2060, on half the land area of France. Sharif told me this while he was doing my hair. He thinks it would be “crazy, darlink, so sweaty, and just not fair”. But he also worries that his Polish builders will go home and leave him with Albanians who are less cute and who have apparently acquired the English tea-break mentality, but not much English.
We have become completely contradictory about migration. We are alarmed by the numbers of people reaching these shores, yet suddenly afraid that they might pack up and leave. Can we afford to lose energetic people who have helped to drive the economy? Can we afford to keep them? How many is too many?
First, the stats. If there is any certainty at all in population projections, it is that a 50-year EU projection is bound to be wrong. So I dug out the Government's 20-year forecast. It's stunning. The Office for National Statistics expects Britain's population to rise by ten million, seven million from immigration. That would require the building of ten big cities. Yet the Government has no plan for housing the numbers it is apparently planning to accept, nor for providing the services they would need. Already, half the babies in London's maternity wards have foreign-born mothers. That doesn't make any baby worth any less. But those of us who have given birth in the capital in recent years know that midwives are dangerously variable in quality and that hospitals are so overstretched that women are being turned away from hospital to give birth on the kitchen floor.
Will a recession empty the wards and leave our dynamic economy bereft of talent? Probably not. The significance of the Polish exodus has been overblown because of the assumption that Eastern Europeans are a majority of those coming here. Yet they have never been. Even in 2004, when the Government opened Britain's doors to the new EU accession countries, of the 940,000 people who came here legally only a third were from the EU. Over the past 15 years more than 90 per cent of legal arrivals have been from non-EU countries.
This gives the lie to the pretence that the Government cannot restrict the numbers entering Britain. The fourfold rise in official immigration in the past decade can be explained largely by deliberate policy. In 1997 the abolition of the Primary Purpose Rule removed the restriction that required applicants to show that they were not just marrying to enter the UK. In 1998 the abolition of embarkation controls ended any effective record of who came in and out. In 2002 the number of work permits was doubled. The Government now claims to have created an “Australian-style points system” to keep out the low-skilled, but it is Australia-lite. Australia sets an annual limit on numbers, then takes those with the most points. The British have no such limit.
Much of our contradictory approach is because while we appreciate the undoubted skills of foreign doctors and builders, we are less enthusiastic about handing out lifetime entitlements to unprecedented numbers of people merely on the basis that they are here, legitimately or not. It is clear that immigration has brought much-needed wealth, ideas and energy into the British economy. It is less clear, over time, how to balance economic benefits against the value of state ones.
The answer may be to decouple the two. There is no cast-iron reason, for example, why immigrants who have been here for five years should automatically acquire a permanent right to remain. Nor is it axiomatic that they should have the same entitlements as British citizens. Many countries with open borders refuse to give immigrants equal rights. When I lived in Bangladesh I met many families whose income came from guest worker relatives in Kuwait and Jordan. During the Gulf War, the sheer number of disgruntled returnees astonished me. For me, the term “guest worker” was flush with imperial exploitation. But these people were just grateful that they could earn. They did not expect additional benefits. They were keen to get back, even to Singapore - which expels guest workers if they become pregnant.
The guest worker concept is unpalatable in many ways. But it may be fairer than shutting people out altogether. The US economist Lant Pritchett has called guest work a liberal solution to the problem of the “irresistible forces of global migration” coming up against the West's “immovable ideas” of nationhood.
I raise the issue because it seems clear to me that our current approach is both undemocratic and unsustainable. When the official figures point exponentially upward - and the official figures are a woeful underestimate because they fail to capture the illegals - we are in danger of stretching the social contract to breaking point. People are getting angry, and they will get angrier if the recessionary tide leaves ever more foreigners claiming benefits here.
The alternative to a guest worker system, which feels more British, would be to offer every legitimate worker equal rights - to benefits, at least, if not to permanent residency. But in this overcrowded island, this will only work if there is some kind of cap on numbers. Come to Tower Hamlets and see people living eight to a room. Spot the secret doors cut into buildings which have been divided up into grim tenements, like the old Jewish ghettos. Many of these people earn below the minimum wage and some are trafficked. It is inhuman. I believe we face a choice: between open borders and guest workers, or closed borders and fewer workers. To continue to pretend that we do not, as recession looms, may prove politically dangerous. The immigration issue is now spatial, not racial. And the fairest solutions may be those that look the least liberal.
"
KHOODEELAAR! No to "uneconomic ... Crossrail scam" CAMPAIGN analyis IS vindicated, AGAIN [93]
This page was last edited at 2120 GMT 2220 Hrs UK Time London Friday 5 September 2008:
KHOODEELAAR! No to "uneconomic, untested, unwanted, publicly-costly, publicly-paid-for Big Business-greed-filling Crossrail scam" CAMPAIGn is VINDICATED, again... In the 'reasons' stated in a RAILNEWS web site item about a [admittedly smaller] 'Crossrail' scam in Scotland being unsupported, the KHOODEELAAR! principled analysis as we had been making against the London CROPSSRAIL, has become relevant.....
[To be continued]
"
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2008/09/05-aberdeen-crossrail.html
North-east Crossrail scheme ‘doomed’
Posted: 5th September 2008 | No Comments
First Minister Alex Salmond
PLANS to set up a £200million commuter transport system in the north-east appeared doomed last night after experts said the business case was weak and questioned potential demand.
First Minister Alex Salmond revealed that Transport Scotland had concerns about the Crossrail scheme and transport partnership Nestrans has been advised to focus on improving the existing rail infrastructure.
Opposition MSPs say the news reinforced their fears for the project, which would involve two new stations in Aberdeen serving the north and south and a service between Inverurie, Aberdeen and Stonehaven every 15 minutes.
Nestrans chairman Kevin Stewart said he believed the project, part of a £1billion transport strategy for the north-east, was feasible but admitted Transport Scotland was not convinced.
North East Conservative MSP Nanette Milne said last night it appeared from the tone of the letter she had received from Mr Salmond that the SNP Government was poised to perform a “spectacular U-turn”.
She said this would be a great pity because the project was “vital” in tackling traffic congestion in Aberdeen, particularly at the Haudagain roundabout.
Mr Salmond wrote: “Transport Scotland has had discussions with Nestrans regarding the emerging conclusions from their draft report relating to the Aberdeen Crossrail proposal.
“The initial findings from this study suggested that the business case for this project might be weak.
“It was therefore jointly agreed that Nestrans should focus on identifying the further passenger benefits that can be gained from the existing rail infrastructure.”
Mrs Milne added: “Local people increasingly feel that the SNP are making a spectacular U-turn which will see these plans and the Crossrail project shelved.
“It is now crucial that the first minister and the SNP government clear up the confusion they have caused surrounding the Aberdeen Crossrail proposal.”
Pivotal to the Crossrail scheme is the reopening of Laurencekirk station, but this has been has been delayed until early next year. Plans are also afoot to reopen Kintore station and Nestrans is funding a feasibility study.
Mr Stewart said: “Transport Scotland do not see there being the demand for the project but it may see it increasing when the timetabling of the trains between Stonehaven and Inverurie changes in December.
“We will judge what happens when Laurencekirk opens in the new year.”
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: “Obviously we want proposals to be as strong as possible to maximise their chances of success when they advance beyond a draft and come forward in final form for consideration by ministers.
Return to top
"
KHOODEELAAR! No to "uneconomic, untested, unwanted, publicly-costly, publicly-paid-for Big Business-greed-filling Crossrail scam" CAMPAIGn is VINDICATED, again... In the 'reasons' stated in a RAILNEWS web site item about a [admittedly smaller] 'Crossrail' scam in Scotland being unsupported, the KHOODEELAAR! principled analysis as we had been making against the London CROPSSRAIL, has become relevant.....
[To be continued]
"
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2008/09/05-aberdeen-crossrail.html
North-east Crossrail scheme ‘doomed’
Posted: 5th September 2008 | No Comments
First Minister Alex Salmond
PLANS to set up a £200million commuter transport system in the north-east appeared doomed last night after experts said the business case was weak and questioned potential demand.
First Minister Alex Salmond revealed that Transport Scotland had concerns about the Crossrail scheme and transport partnership Nestrans has been advised to focus on improving the existing rail infrastructure.
Opposition MSPs say the news reinforced their fears for the project, which would involve two new stations in Aberdeen serving the north and south and a service between Inverurie, Aberdeen and Stonehaven every 15 minutes.
Nestrans chairman Kevin Stewart said he believed the project, part of a £1billion transport strategy for the north-east, was feasible but admitted Transport Scotland was not convinced.
North East Conservative MSP Nanette Milne said last night it appeared from the tone of the letter she had received from Mr Salmond that the SNP Government was poised to perform a “spectacular U-turn”.
She said this would be a great pity because the project was “vital” in tackling traffic congestion in Aberdeen, particularly at the Haudagain roundabout.
Mr Salmond wrote: “Transport Scotland has had discussions with Nestrans regarding the emerging conclusions from their draft report relating to the Aberdeen Crossrail proposal.
“The initial findings from this study suggested that the business case for this project might be weak.
“It was therefore jointly agreed that Nestrans should focus on identifying the further passenger benefits that can be gained from the existing rail infrastructure.”
Mrs Milne added: “Local people increasingly feel that the SNP are making a spectacular U-turn which will see these plans and the Crossrail project shelved.
“It is now crucial that the first minister and the SNP government clear up the confusion they have caused surrounding the Aberdeen Crossrail proposal.”
Pivotal to the Crossrail scheme is the reopening of Laurencekirk station, but this has been has been delayed until early next year. Plans are also afoot to reopen Kintore station and Nestrans is funding a feasibility study.
Mr Stewart said: “Transport Scotland do not see there being the demand for the project but it may see it increasing when the timetabling of the trains between Stonehaven and Inverurie changes in December.
“We will judge what happens when Laurencekirk opens in the new year.”
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: “Obviously we want proposals to be as strong as possible to maximise their chances of success when they advance beyond a draft and come forward in final form for consideration by ministers.
Return to top
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)