londonbridge
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,478
Of course he has, just like how in 2021 he said he had “no plans” to expand ULEZ to outer London…….but Sadiq has explicitly ruled out doing that while he is mayor.
Of course he has, just like how in 2021 he said he had “no plans” to expand ULEZ to outer London…….but Sadiq has explicitly ruled out doing that while he is mayor.
That's because places like Orpington and Upminster have nothing in common with London at all, They are former Urban Districts and I would be surprised if Mayor Khan could locate them on a map. You can surely forgive somebody living somewhere like this for considering they don't live in London:
51.376557,0.137905 | Instant Street View
51.376557,0.137905 | Instant Street Viewwww.instantstreetview.com
This is a house on East Hall Road, which runs from the east of Orpington town towards the M25. Despite being surrounded by open farmland, it is inside London's ULEZ zone, meaning the occupants of that house cannot drive a non-compliant car the half mile or so to the Kent border without paying £12.50; it is about a mile and a half from the nearest TfL bus stop (via an unlit lane with no footpath); it is about eight or nine miles from the nearest Overground station at Penge or Sydenham. I imagine that house is in Council Tax band E or F, so the occupants will pay £576 or £680 in the form of a GLA precept. They could also be forgiven for wondering what they get for that money or why they should bother voting for any of the mayoral candidates.
The issue there is that these kind of locations probably need to be moved out of Greater London and into Kent.
The issue there is that these kind of locations probably need to be moved out of Greater London and into Kent.
Yes the issue is that they should never have been subsumed into "London" in the first place. There are huge swathes of the outer London boroughs similar to the one I illustrated. These are rural areas, many comprising open farmland. They have next to no TfL services, gain nothing from the GLA (apart from pensioners being given free travel on TfL transport they have no realistic access to) and their GLA "precept" is nothing short of them being milked as cash cows to finance the Mayor's largesse in Inner London.The 1965 London expansion should never had happened, the outer boroughs should have remained in their old counties with Greater London only containing the inner boroughs.
Will Sadiq try to get new powers to force annexation of Staines, Watford & Dartford etc thus the inside of M25 will then be Greater London proper?
Will Sadiq try to get new powers to force annexation of Staines, Watford & Dartford etc thus the inside of M25 will then be Greater London proper?
Having a Mayor just for Inner London would be completely unworkable. The two main areas the mayor is responsible for are transport and policing, and these cover the whole of Greater London.The 1965 London expansion should never had happened, the outer boroughs should have remained in their old counties with Greater London only containing the inner boroughs.
Will Sadiq try to get new powers to force annexation of Staines, Watford & Dartford etc thus the inside of M25 will then be Greater London proper?
You could argue it both ways. Dartford town could be in Greater London although the rest of its borough makes sense in Kent. Biggin Hill is free standing and could return to Kent although it would still be isolated from Westerham and Sevenoaks.
I think the administrative enlargement of London in 1965 was the right thing. I went to work for the new London Borough of Bromley on leaving school in 1967, in the Libraries Department, and they were still engaged in the process of trying to make sense of how the previous library systems in Penge (London) and ex-Kent Beckenham, Chislehurst, Orpington and Bromley could be merged into a satisfactory new one. I worked on mobile libraries and we covered places as diverse as Penge, Coney Hall, Keston, St Pauls Cray, Biggin Hill, Cudham, Chelsfield, Farnborough and Chislehurst. Money for buying new books was still in very good supply and, on the whole, the new arrangements made things better overall, with no branch libraries closed until years later. Okay, Knockholt successfully advanced their case to return to Kent, but if Biggin Hill, for instance, had done likewise they'd not have the frequent bus service to Bromley they now have from TfL but be reliant on the meagre commercial offerings of Arriva KT or similar.You could argue it both ways. Dartford town could be in Greater London although the rest of its borough makes sense in Kent. Biggin Hill is free standing and could return to Kent although it would still be isolated from Westerham and Sevenoaks.
Yes there is the odd rural lane around the edge of Greater London but the actual population in these areas is a rounding error for the whole.
The Met & TfL etc obviously would be smaller in size only covering inner London therefore it would be quite possible to have an inner London Mayor also there still would be TfL services across the border such as TfL branded bus stops you'd see somewhere like Chigwell right now, Elizabeth Line to Slough etc.Having a Mayor just for Inner London would be completely unworkable. The two main areas the mayor is responsible for are transport and policing, and these cover the whole of Greater London.
You could argue it both ways. Dartford town could be in Greater London although the rest of its borough makes sense in Kent. Biggin Hill is free standing and could return to Kent although it would still be isolated from Westerham and Sevenoaks.
Yes there is the odd rural lane around the edge of Greater London but the actual population in these areas is a rounding error for the whole.
Sadiq Khan has pledged to bring suburban London railway services under TfL's control, creating a 'revolutionary metro-style' system. The mayor - who is seeking another term on May 2 - says he would work with an incoming Labour government, were the British public to elect one. to 'end the misery of failing outer London suburban rail services' if he is re-elected.
Mr Khan says he would 'explore' which lines could be transferred to the control of the capital's transport authority when current contracts expire. Services are currently run by an array of private operators.
He proposed this morning (Friday, April 26) that ‘devolved’ metro-style services could be suburban Southeastern from Kent to Victoria, Charing Cross and Cannon Street, and Great Northern from Hertfordshire to Moorgate. The announcement follows the national Labour Party revealing plans to roll out nationalisation of rail during first five years in power, if it won the next general election
Khan is announcing pledges (again) including working with a Labour Government to bring London suburban rail services under TfL.
Specifically refers to misery of outer London Rail services !
Sadiq Khan unveils plan for ’metro-style’ London suburban train system
Mr Khan wants to bring suburban trains under TfL's control, if re-electeduk.news.yahoo.com
I once tried to find out online why Hinchley Wood was in Surrey but Maldon Rushett, a village in Chessington was in Greater London. I wasn't successful.Yes the issue is that they should never have been subsumed into "London" in the first place. There are huge swathes of the outer London boroughs similar to the one I illustrated. These are rural areas, many comprising open farmland. They have next to no TfL services, gain nothing from the GLA (apart from pensioners being given free travel on TfL transport they have no realistic access to) and their GLA "precept" is nothing short of them being milked as cash cows to finance the Mayor's largesse in Inner London.
There was one small area which escaped the land grab. This is the story of how the small village of Knockholt, despite being gobbled up by London in 1965, fought a successful campaign to be returned to Kent. The article makes a nice read, but even more informative, the photographs illustrate quite clearly the sort of areas the 1965 scheme considered suitable for inclusion in Greater London. There are still many areas like this spread around the edge of the GLA boundary.
BBC1 East Midlands had a 45 minute opt out on Wednesday evening following the 10 o’clock News. This was concerning the elections for the new East Midlands Mayor. This election is for Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.I wonder if the BBC will have an election programme on the Saturday, to cover the London Elections? They could perhaps opt out BBC London. After all BBC Wales, BBC Scotland and BBC Ulsta have opt outs from time to time. Unlikely of course.
Wasn't ULEZ expansion mandated in a TFL funding package from Westminster?Of course he has, just like how in 2021 he said he had “no plans” to expand ULEZ to outer London…….
The BBC election coverage is in four parts, of which 1, 2 and 4 are on BBC One on Thursday night and Friday. Part 3 is on BBC Two.BBC1 East Midlands had a 45 minute opt out on Wednesday evening following the 10 o’clock News. This was concerning the elections for the new East Midlands Mayor. This election is for Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.
No.Wasn't ULEZ expansion mandated in a TFL funding package from Westminster?
Section 12 h of the TFL financing package suggests something different, reading:No.
The conditions of the funding package encouraged the Mayor to bring forward the already planned extension from the initial Inner London area (the are covered by the congestion charge) to encompass the area out to the North and South Circular Roads:
Government funding agreement did not force Sadiq Khan to extend ULEZ to cover all of Greater London - Full Fact
A letter published in 2020 is circulating on social media as evidence that the proposed ULEZ expansion was ordered by the government.fullfact.org
The decision to expand the zone out to the M25 was entirely that of Mayor Khan.
;
Available to download here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/investors/funding-lettersThe immediate reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these changes, in accordance with the relevant legal powers and decision-making processes.
Some of the candidates' pledge to scrap not only ULEZ but also congestion charge is kind of insane.
Luckily Britain First are never going to succeed in London,Yes, there are some pretty insane pledges there. Incidentally, I received the booklet with all the Mayoral Candidates' statements today. As far as I can make out, no fewer than 6 candidates want to scrap the ULEZ expansion. Joining the Tories in that aim are Britain First, Reform, the SDP, and two independents. Britain First are the ones who want to abolish the Congestion Charge too. The Reform candidate Howard Cox amused me the most by claiming personal credit for the Tories' longstanding freeze in fuel duty, despite that he isn't even in the Tory party. 'Since 2011, every driver, business and charity has benefitted .. all because of my campaign against fuel duty increases'