No, he wasn't clear last election regarding ticket offices, and it did not appear in his manifesto. In fact, he was intentionally vague when asked in the months before the run up to the election on the issue. Presumably because, as polls show, the public do not want unmanned ticket offices, and it wouldn’t have been a vote winner. I don’t know about your definition of being ‘quite clear’, but that doesn’t fit mine. Each to their own I guess.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
So if the traders struck on say the day of settlement for options, they could probably make the funds go bust, should that be allowed?
They didn't, but also it's not really relevant, they at least felt that front line emergency health care was suffering as staff struggled to get in.
Are you seriously comparing the Army to the Police? One prevents our nation from been taken over, the other fills in some paperwork if you get mugged. Think of it that way.
No there isn't, we don't have enough buses. We don't have the road capacity, the area in zone 4 around me was gridlocked, a cycle that normally takes 15 min, took 25, I fear to think how long that must have taken in a car.
It's a transport service which has had tonnes of our tax money put in to it.I meant legally, but you know what, I'd happily smack him down, having seen how he hobbles, I think I'll have very good odds.Link?LAWLALALLALALLALSLA i'm not listening to the point you are making.
More crime happens at the TFL staffed stations than at the un-staffed ones. The staff are not police. Having them hiding in an office doesn't make people feel safe. The more staffed
It was the policy for the election before last.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
j.o.s.h.1408 (13-02-2014)
It's incredibly clear. If a politician has it in their manifesto, there is a good chance they will do it. If it isn't, they wont.
How is that hard to understand?
I'm sure someone who lives in Ireland follows the LMA news closely.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Have you got a source for that? I suspect its rather easy to conflate unmanned ticket offices and unmanned stations depending on the type of survey question you ask. Thats of course discounting the well documented issue with people objecting to change just because its different.
As a semi regular visitor to london its my general observation that the only people using the ticket offices appear to be brits who are unfamiliar with the system. Most foreigners appear to be able to manage the machines (which are of course in lots of languages) easily, and as far as I know the big interchanges where people are likely to enter the network will remain staffed.
The vast majority railway stations have been unmanned for some time, and even the likes of Euston operate on a primarily machine based service (theres what, 50 machines and 8/10 desks?). There is literally 0 point in paying someone to press a destination on a screen and take money of people. Its the exact definition of the type of job that can be done as well, if not better (see languages) by a machine. Thats not to say someone on a station isn't useful, but arguably having them stuck in a ticket booth makes them less able to assist passengers than being out wandering round.
Allowed by who? And how would it be enforced if, in this hypothetical fantasy scenario, they all just never turned up for work, en masse?
My wife’s a nurse, I worked 10 years in the NHS and we both have been present when there were strikes on. While it was true that services were stretched somewhat during a strike, there wasn’t a single serious incident that was attributed to a strike that I can recall, at least during the 10 years I worked there. A&E’s should & do have contingency plans to deal with strike days (i.e put staff in on-site hospital accommodation the night before, asking staff off shift nearby to come in etc). Yes, it puts pressure on the services, but like I said overstating the effect does nothing but empower the union. Counter-productive from your point of view, I would of thought.
Yes, I suppose you could, if you have next to no knowledge of your average policeman’s day and only focus on one part of what they do.
What would that be, an hours walk maybe?
Self-confidence, I like that. Perhaps a touch misplaced, but still commendable.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uplo...vey-Report.pdf
It’s not I wasn’t listening, it was more I found the point irrelevant. But I’ll address it directly; I agree that people at tube stations shouldn’t sleep whilst on duty.
Yes, and he didn’t say he was reversing that policy come re-election in 2012, and didn't include the reversal in his manifesto. Given what he said midterm, (see the quote in 2010) I think it’s safe to assume that people wouldn’t have been anticipating a reversal.
So in 2012, Boris Johnson included in his manifesto that he would be making these changes?
I’m a Londoner. I would imagine most people who move away from the place they were born and raised still like to keep abreast of what is happening in their home town if they are able, especially if most of their family still live there. That way, a person won’t end up ignorant to issues such as this. Although I guess following the story closely doesn't necessarily mean that will follow.
See response to TA for sourse. And your point is fair enough. So why not, when seeking re-election, did Johnson not come out and say that this was what he was going to do?
I would completely agree, If LU’s proposals were simply what you suggested, i.e. move staff out of ticket offices and onto platforms. But they are not.
They would be a lot of lawsuits, I would imagine criminal ones under the market manipulation laws.
Not really, we can make laws to prevent the workers striking in a manner that impacts vital travel, just like we do with police.
My point is you drew and arbitrary distinction between the two. I would suggest that the impact of one persons strike is what matters.
My point is that rights to strike should be limited by the impact of their actions, in this case, they have no moral argument. I've commuted at least 100 times from my local tube station. I've never once seen a staff member there engaging the public.
Given the economic impact to the people and businesses, who have no choice but to fund them, it isn't remotely fair or proportional. The point is clear, they could have created problems for TFL by leaving the barriers open. They choose not to do so, but to bring co-ordinated willfull disruption, give in to us, or we create problems for your business. That is just racketeering.
Little bit over an hour.
I'd happily do it, I'm 196cm btw. I think that as a human being he is a raging hypocrite, he has claimed to be for helping the poor etc, yet does the complete opposite. Granted this is true of most people who talk about helping the poor, they generally talk about other people doing it.
Well that clear impartial survey has convinced me. (Q5 is particularly wrong!).
My point is that staff don't statistically appear to make the platforms safer. Mostly because in London the majority of crime (theft) happens in touristy central places that will need staff, and quite a lot of them.
It wasn't a reversal, it was a case of not continuing to fund something.
I mean this whole quote anyway was not from Borris, but his office, when someone asked about his upholding of his manefesto pledge. Every station that has a ticket office will continue to have one. he didn't say anything about it, he didn't campaign on it (because frankly so few people are in favour now, TFLs data shows the trending away from using offices).
If you don't like the adulturist bafoon, fair enough, but let's not re-write history. The quote on the tube board is infact, wrong as it wasn't him. http://www.adambienkov.com/2010/03/b...-to-close.html
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
You're joking right? That's probably not the worst designed survey question I've ever seen, but its pretty much up there. I also can't see anything other than the RMTs own website to support the claims about what job losses will actually entail. It also seems self evident that the move to 24 hour running during 2015 will provide additional hours. Even if its only zone 1, say they have an average of 3 staff on a station (maybe 2 at the little ones, 4/5 at the big ones) so 180 staff, before you take into account controllers, drivers, techs etc.
Whilst I can sympathise with individuals, on an industry level, sometimes people just need to mtfu up and realise that their job can be done better by a machine. See car manufacturing, coal mining, secretarial pools, cotton spinners, longbowmen etc.
If it were an unofficial strike perhaps………
......and that works so well. Ever heard of Blue Flu?
Actually, it was you who bundles all 3 in together. I would argue that most reasonable people would be of the opinion that the impact of a Police or Army strike would be far greater than one at LU.
In your opinion. In mine, they do.
I’m not doubting you, but I honestly find that incredibly hard to believe.
Ah well. Seems you disagree with the right to strike. Till the law changes, you’ll just have to suck it up. By the way, I would imagine intentionally leaving the barriers open would have left them liable for misconduct proceedings. By striking, they are protected by law.
Well, there’s your alternative.
I’m only a couple of inched shorter than you, and a 16 stone self-confessed gym monkey to boot, and I would think twice, so fair play to you. Although I cannot help wonder if your statement has a touch of the keyboard warrior to it.
Actually, I’ve never heard him mention the poor, so I wouldn’t know about him being a hypocrite. What he does is talk a lot of helping his members and he does that in bundles.
Ah well, you can’t please everyone.
Source?
So someone who based part of his campaign in 2008 on the keeping open ticket offices, and who repeatedly said he would keep them open if he was elected, and who doesn’t include any changes to that position in his manifesto to the following election, announces after re-election that he will be closing them. The definition of reversal is: ‘a change to an opposite direction, position, or course of action.’. That will do for me.
Well, it was a statement from his spokesperson, attributed to the Mayor’s Office. But what he directly said, in 2010, was:
‘"The first and most important point to make is that no ticket offices will be closed, alright? They're not going to be closed." Followed by ‘"The answer to the number of ticket office closures is: nil."
http://www.adambienkov.com/2010/03/b...-to-close.html
So you dismiss the survey used by the union, but present TFL’s data? I suppose consistency is a little too much to ask for.
Most observers would say your just playing with semantics, given that the quote came from his office and given what he actually did say.
Meh. However it was worded, you’ll never be able to please everyone. It strikes me as pretty reasonable to expect the public to want manned ticket offices, especially given how Red Ken came under fire for saying he was closing them, and how Boris Johnson campaigned to keep them open. I would imagine any survey to reflect that.
Don’t forget, it was also the TSSA, considered far more moderate than the RMT, and representative of middle management, who also voted to strike. I think it entirely plausible that the RMT’s claims to be correct, especially as LU have refused, thus far, to refute them.
Ah the bottom line. Not the be all and end all to everyone you know.
Quite true, but having it worded in such an obviously partisan manner undermines the whole point of the survey
considered by who? The TSSA's 'why we're taking action' page is as full of 'uptos' and 'coulds'. They also freely confuse journeys and customer numbers to suit their argument, among various other fairly transparent techniques.Don’t forget, it was also the TSSA, considered far more moderate than the RMT, and representative of middle management, who also voted to strike. I think it entirely plausible that the RMT’s claims to be correct, especially as LU have refused, thus far, to refute them.
Presuming that you'd also be against an increase in fares it seems reasonable to assume that its the be all and end all for the majority of people. It strikes me as pretty reasonable to assume that the majority of tube users want an efficient, reliable service. notwithstanding any issues around migrating to it, getting rid of ticket offices in favour of more machines sounds like a reasonable way to achieve that.Ah the bottom line. Not the be all and end all to everyone you know.
No even an official one. There are more than just UK laws at play.Err not following what any kind of influenza has to do with anything?
I consider all of them essential.
So this is the difference. Now I will say I don't know anyone in real life who supports their cause. The RMT's own manifesto about the strike painted a hell that basically is just the DLR.
How often have you seen them in a zone 4 station? I should clarify I've seen them in central ones.
No, I can protest and moan, and write to my MP too.But we've already paid for the primary. Now, if you consider the billing out rate for peoples time. Your alternative is incredibly expensive.
The guys 50 and fat enough that a loud shout would probably give him a heart attack.Read anything he wrote before he was chair of RMT.
I've got a survey here that says the whole of the RMT should be flogged. I produced it. This then makes that the public opinon as a fact.
You presented a truely awful source of data to back up a point. It has a vested interest and clearly was not done to get accurate data, this isn't good enough GCSE grade.
crimemaps.btp.police.uk
(seriously this as I say is obvious due to tourists etc)
Which is my point, it wasn't Boris who said it, and basically it amounted to "we are doing what we said we'd do in the manafesto". It might appear to be splitting hairs, but when tube workers are putting the quote up on a board (subsidised by taxes) I think it's important to split hairs. If it's the best endorsement of Boris's commitment, wow. Say nothing about something for 4 years, and people are pissed that 3 years later you didn't say something about it.
I dismiss it because it is very poor. I don't present TFLs data as peoples opinions, I present it is peoples actual behaviour. There is a big difference in that.
The fact is, pure and simple that people are making more trips than ever before, with less help from ticket office staff. You can't deny that, unless you are saying TFL are fuding their travel numbers, this would have major legal consequences, unlike some survey (which honestly did you read? I'd fail a KS4 kid who tried to present that as coursework).
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
You could also, that by wording it in such a partisan manner, it reinforces the point. I’d have to agree pretty strongly with something before I submit, especially if I feel I am being coerced into it. But I accept your point, it could have been worded better. I would suggest that it is no different from many other surveys requested by a party with an interest in it though. I would wager a YouGov poll would give the same(ish) results, although I freely concede that is just my opinion.
You know as well as I do that virtually every body, political group, government, etc. will manipulate to suit their argument. The TSSA are considered by moderate however, by LU management, by the RMT (the 2 unions at leadership level do not get on, with the RMT considering them pushovers, and by political leaders and the wider trade union movement (I was a steward in Unison when I was in London) Boris Johnson didn’t even mention them in his Telegraph column regarding the strikes, precisely because he knew it would weaken his argument if he lumped a known moderate union in with a more militant one.
And the Union leaders, despite how they are caricatured in the press, are not stupid. They understand that these changes will take place. In fact, the ticket offices were already being closed in 2008, without strikes, under Livingstone. It’s how these changes are now being implemented, and the pace of them, that has caused the problems. You can directly blame Boris for that because he campaigned on the back of keeping them open to win votes, when he knew full well he would have to close them at a pace further down the line that would be disagreeable to the unions. Still, always better to have a pantomime villain like Bob Crow to blame.
Its been demonstrated on many occasions that asking a question in a leading way like that influences peoples answers, regardless of their predisposition to agree or disagree. Couple that with the fact that a lot of people are reasonably poorly informed about the issue and you have a serious problem.
I suspect a yougov poll with the same question might, but what difference does that make? You know yougov are nothing to do with the government right?
The fact that they're less militant than the RMT hardly makes them a beacon of rational thought does it. UKIP are more sensible than the BNP, doesn't make them sensible.You know as well as I do that virtually every body, political group, government, etc. will manipulate to suit their argument. The TSSA are considered by moderate however, by LU management, by the RMT (the 2 unions at leadership level do not get on, with the RMT considering them pushovers, and by political leaders and the wider trade union movement (I was a steward in Unison when I was in London) Boris Johnson didn’t even mention them in his Telegraph column regarding the strikes, precisely because he knew it would weaken his argument if he lumped a known moderate union in with a more militant one.
I agree, union leaders aren't stupid. They're very good at extracting lots of money from members by scaremongering and making themselves seem more powerful than they are (scargill being the most obvious example).And the Union leaders, despite how they are caricatured in the press, are not stupid. They understand that these changes will take place. In fact, the ticket offices were already being closed in 2008, without strikes, under Livingstone. It’s how these changes are now being implemented, and the pace of them, that has caused the problems. You can directly blame Boris for that because he campaigned on the back of keeping them open to win votes, when he knew full well he would have to close them at a pace further down the line that would be disagreeable to the unions. Still, always better to have a pantomime villain like Bob Crow to blame.
The statement about boris vs/ unions isn't even internally consistent. Unions are allowed to concede that offices will have to close and campaign for strike actions to stop it, but politicians aren't allowed to change their mind on an issue over the course of 6 years?
I doubt strongly any individual or union would be taken to court over a legally recognised strike.
You do know it’s not really the flu, don’t you?
And I guess that’s why the Union wields such power. You painted a scenario earlier where supermarket shelf stackers became ‘essential’, so it’s hard to argue this particular point with someone like that.
Lot’s. I used South Wimbledon Tube station an awful lot (Kilkenny Tavern anyone?) of the top of my head. Although I am going back to 2011, to be fair.
I was merely pointing out that there was an alternative, when you said there was none. That you don’t want to/like to/feel like you should have to use that alternative is a fair POV, but to say it doesn’t exist is factually incorrect.
Yeah, you could shout him to death. Could work.
I have read a good bit, but I’m not sure what he said that would make him a hypocrite? Should people who defend poor people’s rights not speak out, unless they are poor themselves?
Where is it? What was the sample size?
I disagree.
I think most people would look at that and say you are being unnecessarily pedantic.
Yeah people are funny like that. They sort of expect that if you make a massive song and dance about something to help you win an election, that you would at least include it in your manifesto if you plan on doing the opposite further down the line.
And data cannot possibly be manipulated I guess.
Yeah, I read the survey. Not the best, but I don’t see what the huge problem with it is TBH. I’m yet to see any data that tells me the majority of the paying public want unmanned stations. When I see that, I may change my opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote