London mayor - pledges? What pledges?

Most people agree with what labour used to stand for and were happy to support it but these days few are sure what their core values are as they seem putting it politely fluid. Corbyn was a bad choice for leader far too divisive and his past alienates many, add in that he has been exposed by the EU referendum as someone more interested in party politics then being open and honest as he clearly is not a remain supporter only siding with remain to keep some mp's in the labour party happy and it's an unelectable mess which hands it to the conservatives.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

You only see it as a rant because it is Labour involved .I agree though Osem does rail against Labour quite a lot ,but so do I and many others on this forum,maybe you should consider that the reason is because of the disappointment we feel in the labour party ,the party, that in these days of the super rich taking whatever they feel like, should be supporting the working man and should be the party i and perhaps Osem would be supporting if the party had any real substance .

---------- Post added at 16:36 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------



Oh come on ,London is hardly broke

I thought it'd be Boris's fault...

If Khan didn't know the numbers maybe he should have kept his big mouth shut and not just made a load of false promises. I dare say it'll also be Boris's fault that the bus driver's son made up some entirely ridiculous numbers for affordable housing in London and failed to meet them come the next election. Same old lies same old Labour.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I actually watched London Tonight, and this was brought up - naturally.

And the point was brought about the fares in London.

Some points of the fares, was put in by The Government, and cannot be changed by Khan.

The mayor problem is that during the time that Boris, was London Mayor. He brought some items, that cannot be changed by Khan.

You see Khan, is picking up some crap brought out by a Tory

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 18:57 ----------

http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/sadiq-kh...ise-each-year/
I suggest you read this.

Only in politics can you get off the hook by blaming predecessors so convenient and easy and best of all not only do we the public buy into it we fight each other over it genius planning.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Rizzy, isn't that strange when members on this forum blame Labour for all the problems that have arisen in the UK. Before the Tories got into power

Didn't Boris. buy several water cannons at £250.000, which have NEVER BEEN USED in London.

What the shrewd Conservatives have done, is bring out laws that cannot be changed.

Didn't they pass a power to say that, elections would only been held every FIVE YEARS.

Mr Khan, has only been in power several weeks, and he has already been criticised.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Rizzy, isn't that strange when members on this forum blame Labour for all the problems that have arisen in the UK. Before the Tories got into power

Well said Arthur .. not sure they would like you pointing out though ..

[Osem]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Only in politics can you get off the hook by blaming predecessors so convenient and easy and best of all not only do we the public buy into it we fight each other over it genius planning.

Whilst there are, realistically, only 2 options it's likely to remain the case. It's a big ask voting for complete unknowns in any serious election so the big two benefit from the inertia and resulting apathy, knowing they can basically say pretty much what they want and still have a good chance.

Originally Posted by Osem

I thought it'd be Boris's fault...

If Khan didn't know the numbers maybe he should have kept his big mouth shut and not just made a load of false promises. I dare say it'll also be Boris's fault that the bus driver's son made up some entirely ridiculous numbers for affordable housing in London and failed to meet them come the next election. Same old lies same old Labour.

Pfft. People were blaming Ken Livingstone for things way into Boris' second term.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I actually watched London Tonight, and this was brought up - naturally.

And the point was brought about the fares in London.

Some points of the fares, was put in by The Government, and cannot be changed by Khan.

No. What happens is that the other transport networks have to be reimbursed by TFL for TFL-paid usage of their network. In this case those fares would not have been reduced making it more expensive, and unrealistic, for TFL to cut fares for them essentially subsidising their usage.

Kahn shouldn't have made the promise. He also made reference to the rising price of travel cards in an article he wrote so it's not unreasonable to expect that would have been included in the price freeze.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by martyh

You only see it as a rant because it is Labour involved .I agree though Osem does rail against Labour quite a lot ,but so do I and many others on this forum,maybe you should consider that the reason is because of the disappointment we feel in the labour party ,the party, that in these days of the super rich taking whatever they feel like, should be supporting the working man and should be the party i and perhaps Osem would be supporting if the party had any real substance

Rant:

Angry, emotionally charged, or tediously negative speech or writing: a speech that was more rant than reason.

Seems about right ..

The ranting is not because of "disappointment in the labour party" ... if there was a balance of threads where the current Government was brought to account on their failings (yes, there are some) then you may have a point. Or, threads about things that the Government oppostion may have deserved credit for (yes, believe it or not, there are some) then, again, you may have a point. But ...

Then highlight some of these high points for the opposition, sorry but complaining about a thread when your first contribution is "another labour rant" is a bit rich really.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It would also be pretty useful if the silent majority got off their backsides and got registered to vote and actually went to vote however appalling the choices seem..

It could also be pretty useful if the noisy minority stayed at home sat on their hands.

Originally Posted by denphone

Indeed the choices are appalling but many people died so we could all vote nowadays so in my book there are no excuses not to vote.

One excuse is that many people died so we could all have the freedom of choice not to vote if we don't want to.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Pfft. People were blaming Ken Livingstone for things way into Boris' second term.

No. What happens is that the other transport networks have to be reimbursed by TFL for TFL-paid usage of their network. In this case those fares would not have been reduced making it more expensive, and unrealistic, for TFL to cut fares for them essentially subsidising their usage.

Kahn shouldn't have made the promise. He also made reference to the rising price of travel cards in an article he wrote so it's not unreasonable to expect that would have been included in the price freeze.

Thanks for making my point.

Whilst there are, realistically, only 2 options it's likely to remain the case. It's a big ask voting for complete unknowns in any serious election so the big two benefit from the inertia and resulting apathy, knowing they can basically say pretty much what they want and still have a good chance.

Khan and now is, however, the subject of this thread and all the pre-election guff about being different was clearly just a lot of hot air. Despite being a bus driver's son he's really no different from the rest and an even bigger let down to the ordinary people he made so much fuss about representing.

The silence from the rose tinted crew is truly deafening...

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Then highlight some of these high points for the opposition, sorry but complaining about a thread when your first contribution is "another labour rant" is a bit rich really.

Rich? Nope .. just accurate ..

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Didn't they pass a power to say that, elections would only been held every FIVE YEARS.

Yes, because they were basically forced into it by the Lib-Dems.

Your beloved Labour supported the policy, allthough they did try to alter it to four years, not five.

[jackjone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

well you get what you vote for [liars]

Thank you for detailing the meaning of the name Cameron. How apt. Obviously his parent's were psychic!