vote Boris

Just want to point out that I dont read the DM. The very idea

(and I dont get the polar bear thing at all.)

If people want to 'save the planet' they can bloomin' well walk. That's what I do, but then 'saving the planet' wasn't on my list of bike-benefits. Managing to turn everything into a raging froth about that & polar bears is something the DM & its readers appear to enjoy anyway.

bob I know that things are not that simple and I dont for one moment think that the services would still be here if the bikes were not.

The bikes in themelves are not a bad thing, nor is all this manic street cleaning and flower planting, building refurbishment and prettification of my borough pre Olympics.

BUT it strikes me as fiddling whilst Rome burns (fairly apt if you live in North/East London) to introduce this stuff when services are being decimated.

Not just a bit, not just trimming off the nice extras like Holiday Clubs and Day trips - but stopping all respite, cutting social workers for disabled children, specialist nurses and wheelchair services.

It brings home just how distant Boris and his lot are from the realities of life for so many of his constituents.

Rubbing salt in the wound IYSWIM.

It reminds me of when my DD was sick. The parents of children on treatment for cancer were informed that transport would no longer be available, that we would have to get public transport to hospital (I wont go into the difficulties of transporting a vomiting child with no immune system on the tube).

At the same time the hospital aquired a huge sculpture, a pebble. Beautiful as it was, and knowing that the money for it came from a totally different budget - it didnt take away the sense of injustice.

Bike schemes and new buses are for the good times. Not for when people are struggling to survive IMO.

Yes it was the Mail article, and it is all in favour of the cycling scheme and Boris Bikes and I haven't read it all, but possibly also believes that they contribute to "saving the planet".

One per cent use them, but they generate lots of publicity and they "save the planet" and mayoral candidates spend lots of time talking about them. I think OhDo is right, they are not that important, there are far more important things that politicians should spend their time on (and yes I have heard that we had only 50 days left to save the planet) such as crime and the issues that OhDo mentioned.

I provide links for my quotes Claig . Let me guess, was that in the Mail by any chance?

'Back in July 2010, however, he had launched a cycle hire scheme. Boris Bikes have undoubtedly proved themselves to be fun. Yet not only have there been long-term technical issues, but, according to City Hall?s own figures, only one per cent of Londoners uses them.'

I doubt it's ever as simple as 'this money could have been spent on that' however much we'd like it to be, so I'm not really sure how valid the argument is, although please don't take that as criticism. It's not at all. I don't disagree that respite care is more important in itself than bike hire. But I don't think the Mayor's office is responsible for NHS spending in any form, is it?

It doesnt matter who mooted them. They were introduced whilst we were being told our country was on its knees. Whilst physios, OTs, specialist children's nurses etc were being deleted to save money.

They certainly were not self funding when they were introduced. They only serve a tiny part of London's population. There are none in Walthamstow, Edmonton, Tottenham for example.

Nor will there be.

I am not good at maths but if 25 million is only 18 percent of the entire cost, they are costing me a hell of a lot of money.

Bikes are nice. Being able to rent a bike is very nice.

It is not essential and how many times have we been told by this government that we must be prepared to put up with services being pared to the bone?

How much respite could be paid for with the Bike Money?

meh, my asterisks went awry

It doesn't say that it is' self-funding, but will* be. Helpful links provided already but perhaps you won't look at the Graun, Claig. Conversely, I won't look at the DM . I suppose timing depends on expansion, but original idea was 'within 2-3' years which is not long.

'Yet, one of Boris?s first acts as Mayor was to slash funding for the London Cycling Network, the only real attempt at a large-scale pan-London network for cyclists, and also the road safety budget. Then came news of Boris?s taxi expenses ? a whopping £4698 for short hops across London during his first year alone. Why was he not making these journeys by bike?'

If they self-fund, why slash funding, particularly as we have supposedly passed the "tipping point" and were told that we had only "50 days left to save the planet"?

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2137808/Boris-Johnson-courted-lost-growing-cycling-lobby.html

If they self-fund, there is no problem. I don't know a lot about them, but how long did they take to self-fund?

What exactly is the problem with them Claig if they self-fund?

'The bikes thing was originally mooted by Livingstone actually.'

That comes as absolutely no surprise at all.

The bikes thing was originally mooted by Livingstone actually.

And I don't share your idea that having the scheme is wasting money. It's now a very highly used mode of transport & it would obviously appear to take pressure off other public transport as well as easing car congestion. I don't use it by the way so I have no vested interest.

From Wikipedia;

"(it) is potentially the only Transport for London (TfL) system to fully fund its annual cost of operation , a goal originally estimated to take two to three years. The scheme is sponsored by Barclays bank, which is contributing £25 million (18% of the scheme's initial cost) over five years to the project's funding"

I agree with OhDo, I don't think the bikes should have been a priority in such tough times, or the buses. I think it is done for spin purposes - the bikes help "save the planet" and the "polar bear". Some voters like that sort of stuff and the media absolutely loves it as the 1% cheer on from their ivory towers (with posters of polar bears on their walls).

I have no clue why Livingstone would so such a stupid thing.

My point is that when Boris got in, things had changed, his governement kept telling us that we were all skint. They said we had to go without and suck it up because we were all in it together blah blah.

Yet still he wasted money on bikes and buses.

Perfectly nice things in better times but appropriate in a financial meltdown?

I dont think so.

The point is we didnt need bikes or new buses. Not when we were so poor we had to take away EMA from vulnerable children.

They bloke is an idiot.

Who was talking about ivory towers earlier? I dont understand the connection with Polar Bears but I think Boris probably lives in one.

Ken is a proven crook and racist - a typical 'I'm with you brother' cut from the same cloth as Galloway. ie. 'Im with you - apart from when I'm jetting first-class around the world and pocketing backhanders.'

I feel that Boris is far more trusthworthy.

It's true that lots of londoners don't use the bikes - equally lots never visit the museums or parks. doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

"In the middle of a recession he decides to go ahead and junk buses that cost millions because he yearns for the days of double deckers (like he would ever use "

I do find it a bit odd, this one. Livingstone stated baldly that 'only a ghastly, dehumanised moron' would get rid of the old Routemasters, which had plenty of life left in them. Once he was Mayor he did exactly that and a fortune was spent on buses which were entirely unsuitable for London streets. He could surely have replaced some of the old buses with newer double-deckers or even bendies & kept a proportion of the Routemasters in service.

The people voting for Livingstone didn't seem to have a problem with an entire fleet of useable buses replaced with expensive new ones. Yet a Mayor who made an explicit promise to do it IN HIS MANIFESTO so everyone knew what was going to happen is somehow far worse than the one who said he wouldn't, but did. Go figure.

Anyway, I did get used to using the bends ('free bus' to most) but having finally caught one of these elusive new Routemasters the other day I can say that it's a lovely piece of design. Not something you can usually say about a bus.

The bikes may be popular but they are feck all use to the majority of Londoners. The ones that dont work in the city or the west end, the ones that live in the parts of London that Boris doesnt even know exists.

I was no fan of the bendy buses but he didnt get rid of them because they were dangerous, he got rid of them because it was part of his populist manifesto.

Boris is not the Mayor of London, he is the Mayor of the City of London and few of the Naicer parts of the west end.

He didnt give much of a fuck when my part of London was being burnt down did he?

He is like the rest of his party, elitist and out of touch.

Now you're being stupid.

Vive La Revolution!

ShirleyKnot, I am joking. Don't take it so seriously. I don't care what opinions people have, I don't think people are stupid, they just think differently and have different priorities. Long live democracy!

Righty-o.

So what you're saying is that if my opinion differs from yours that I should be ashamed.

Good one.