"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...
In message , at 08:42:01 on Wed, 25
Jul 2018, michael adams remarked:

There will be no more general grants from the government for
day-to-day running of services from 2018 - earlier than TfL thought.

There will nevertheless continue to be a substantial subsidy from London Council Tax
payers.


Just so as I can be clear as what you mean by "subsidy" there.

Let's say A subsidises B in respect of C, if, and only if D

Could you possibly fill in the blanks ?

I only say that, because quite obviously Council Tax Payers
and beneficiaries of any TFL subsidies, whether real or
potential beneficiaries, are not only, not mutually exclusive,
but apart from the bedridden who can't travel, and infants,
children and young people who don't pay Council Tax, would appear to
be exactly the same people.

Or am I missing something ?



michael adams

.....

In message , at
09:18:46 on Thu, 26 Jul 2018, michael adams
remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
08:42:01 on Wed, 25
Jul 2018, michael adams remarked:

There will be no more general grants from the government for
day-to-day running of services from 2018 - earlier than TfL thought.

There will nevertheless continue to be a substantial subsidy from
London Council Tax
payers.

Just so as I can be clear as what you mean by "subsidy" there.

Let's say A subsidises B in respect of C, if, and only if D

Could you possibly fill in the blanks ?

I only say that, because quite obviously Council Tax Payers
and beneficiaries of any TFL subsidies, whether real or
potential beneficiaries, are not only, not mutually exclusive,
but apart from the bedridden who can't travel, and infants,
children and young people who don't pay Council Tax, would appear to
be exactly the same people.

Or am I missing something ?

All council tax payers subsidise the fares of the subset who choose to
use TfL. As it happens, the last time I was a London Resident (for a
period of about 3yrs) I don't recall ever using a bus, there were no
tube lines where I lived, so only used them on occasional trips to WC1,
and Overground was just a gleam in someone's eye (and even today nowhere
near where I was living then).

I got by on a mixture of walking for very local things like taking the
children to school, maybe once a week a National Rail train to Waterloo,
and everything else by driving.

But I did recognise that my ability to drive was significantly enhanced
by the number of others who had been incentivised to use buses and
(national- rather than local-taxpayer) subsidised mainline trains.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:09:49 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, michael adams remarked:

As to your other point about Londoners enjoying a fares freeze,
I'm rather astonished to learn that you weren't aware that this
freeze only applies to single journeys. There is no such freeze
on the cost of travel cards or on Oyster card daily and monthly
caps.

It's not a universal freeze, but you've got the formula wrong.

The freeze turned out to be only applicable to fares set by TfL (which
includes TfL-only singles, of course); however tickets which are within
London, but inter-available with National Rail (which includes some
singles but especially Travelcards and Oyster capping which emulates
Travelcards), have an element set by those National Rail TOCs, and
haven't been frozen.
--
Roland Perry

On 26/07/2018 12:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:09:49 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, michael adams remarked:

As to your other point about Londoners enjoying a fares freeze,
I'm rather astonished to learn that you weren't aware that this
freeze only applies to single journeys. There is no such freeze
on the cost of travel cards or on Oyster card daily and monthly
caps.

It's not a universal freeze, but you've got the formula wrong.

The freeze turned out to be only applicable to fares set by TfL (which
includes TfL-only singles, of course); however tickets which are within
London, but inter-available with National Rail (which includes some
singles but especially Travelcards and Oyster capping which emulates
Travelcards), have an element set by those National Rail TOCs, and
haven't been frozen.

Indeed. Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to
it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/07/2018 09:09, michael adams wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

And as a London resident I'd find it hard to explain to people outside London why
central government should give TfL more of their taxes to subsidise travel in London
while Londoners' enjoy a fares freeze.

Well you could start by pointing out that London, followed by the South
East, and to a very small degree the East of England are the only
areas of the UK which actually make a positive contribution to the
UK economy

As the graph, half down this abstract from the ONS shows

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...2015to2016#toc
Country and regional public sector finances: Financial year ending March 2016


In short London contributes around 28 billion, The South East around 15
billion and the East of England around 2 billion. The North West of
England on the other hand produced a 22 billion deficit,
Yorkshire around a 14 million deficit, and Scotland around a
15 billion deficit.


You seem there to be equating net fiscal contribution with contribution
to the UK economy. I thought one usually looked at total public
spending as a proportion of a region's GDP (or more probably GVA).
Otherwise workers who receive, say, £3,000 p.a. net more in benefits and
public services than they pay in taxes, duties etc score as a "net loss"
to the economy, even if they are responsible for a net positive £10,000
p.a. contribution to GVA/GDP.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
All council tax payers subsidise the fares of the subset who choose to
use TfL. As it happens, the last time I was a London Resident (for a
period of about 3yrs) I don't recall ever using a bus, there were no
tube lines where I lived, so only used them on occasional trips to WC1,
and Overground was just a gleam in someone's eye (and even today nowhere
near where I was living then).

I'd guess there were plenty other subsidies around then which others might
deem unfair too.

But let's stick to the present day, shall we?

If would be a very rare council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

It also would be the thin end of the wedge if council tax payers could
obtain a rebate because they don't use PT. As the same would have to apply
to all other council services.

--
*The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Robin wrote:
Indeed. Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to
it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).

I take it you have evidence to prove this wrong?

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 15:19:45 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to
it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).

I take it you have evidence to prove this wrong?

The implication of the manifesto promise was that all households using
public transport [to get to work or otherwise] would see no rise.

But lots of households did see a rise because their fares were capped.

Presumably the £200 over 4yrs is what someone with a crystal ball
guesses that TfL would have raised their fares by in the absence of the
manifesto promise.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:18:23 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

All council tax payers subsidise the fares of the subset who choose to
use TfL. As it happens, the last time I was a London Resident (for a
period of about 3yrs) I don't recall ever using a bus, there were no
tube lines where I lived, so only used them on occasional trips to WC1,
and Overground was just a gleam in someone's eye (and even today nowhere
near where I was living then).

I'd guess there were plenty other subsidies around then which others might
deem unfair too.

But let's stick to the present day, shall we?

If would be a very rare council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

I disagree. Five years ago I was living somewhere with excellent public
transport better than a bus every ten minutes; and paid my way on them
several times a week (on quasi-discretional trips as I worked from
home).

I was looking forward to a bus-pass so I could explore the area more,
but "they" changed the rules. So despite having paid in the recent past
into a pot, to give people at a younger age than myself free travel, I
was denied it.

Fast forward to now, when I've had my bus pass for a little over a year,
but have genuinely had no opportunity to use it because the bus service
in the new place I live is so appalling. Basically about half the
District Council[1] area is served by one bus an hour, and some of the
rest by one every perhaps three hours. The village I'm most likely to
want to go as a leisure destination basically has minimalistic buses
which are on the school-run [so against the tidal flow I'd need] but
take other passengers too.

No-one else in my household has any realistic proposition of finding the
local bus service useful either.

[1] I'm not blaming them, it's just to give an idea of the footprint.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:34:36 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, Roland Perry remarked:
In message , at 15:19:45 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to
it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).

I take it you have evidence to prove this wrong?

The implication of the manifesto promise was that all households using
public transport [to get to work or otherwise] would see no rise.

But lots of households did see a rise because their fares were

not

capped.

Presumably the £200 over 4yrs is what someone with a crystal ball
guesses that TfL would have raised their fares by in the absence of the
manifesto promise.

--
Roland Perry

On 26/07/2018 15:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
Indeed. Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to
it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).

I take it you have evidence to prove this wrong?


Where did I imply it was wrong?

If you read back you'll see that I had already referred to it as a fares
freeze. ("Fares" does not means "all fares".

As regards the household saving, I was stating a fact. See eg

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-a3398766.html

I wasn't going to state baldly that "the average household will save
£200" because *I* haven't the evidence to prove that. Have you?



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message , at
15:53:52 on Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Robin remarked:

If you read back you'll see that I had already referred to it as a
fares freeze. ("Fares" does not means "all fares".

The promise was "Londoners won't pay a penny more for their travel in
2020 than they do today".

[I'll happily accept ring-fencing that to public transport in the
Greater London area, as he has little control of car rental costs
in Australia]

However, he specifically ruled out "if's and buts":

"I want to be crystal clear, no ifs, no buts, what you'll pay if I'm
elected Mayor in May 2016 is what you'll pay at the end of my 4
years in office."

No "Tfl travel only", either.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
If would be a very rare council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

I disagree. Five years ago I was living somewhere with excellent public
transport better than a bus every ten minutes; and paid my way on them
several times a week (on quasi-discretional trips as I worked from
home).

I was looking forward to a bus-pass so I could explore the area more,
but "they" changed the rules. So despite having paid in the recent past
into a pot, to give people at a younger age than myself free travel, I
was denied it.

That will teach you to vote Tory, then. They've put up the qualifying age
for almost everything.

Fast forward to now, when I've had my bus pass for a little over a year,
but have genuinely had no opportunity to use it because the bus service
in the new place I live is so appalling. Basically about half the
District Council[1] area is served by one bus an hour, and some of the
rest by one every perhaps three hours. The village I'm most likely to
want to go as a leisure destination basically has minimalistic buses
which are on the school-run [so against the tidal flow I'd need] but
take other passengers too.

No-one else in my household has any realistic proposition of finding the
local bus service useful either.

[1] I'm not blaming them, it's just to give an idea of the footprint.

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax
subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like
a TFL area.

--
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 26/07/2018 15:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
Indeed. Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to
it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).

I take it you have evidence to prove this wrong?


Where did I imply it was wrong?

So explain what you meant by 'doesn't stop the mayor ....referring'

If you read back you'll see that I had already referred to it as a fares
freeze. ("Fares" does not means "all fares".

As regards the household saving, I was stating a fact. See eg

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-a3398766.html

I wasn't going to state baldly that "the average household will save
£200" because *I* haven't the evidence to prove that. Have you?

I'm not the one questioning it.



--

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 17:16:27 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

If would be a very rare council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

....

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax
subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like
a TFL area.

It's not a TfL area, but you raised the issue of council tax payers (I'm
one) using PT, and I don't.
--
Roland Perry

On 26/07/2018 17:19, Dave Plowmyou rush an (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 26/07/2018 15:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
Indeed. Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer to
it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).

I take it you have evidence to prove this wrong?


Where did I imply it was wrong?

So explain what you meant by 'doesn't stop the mayor ....referring'

I was referring to Roland's point.

If you read back you'll see that I had already referred to it as a fares
freeze. ("Fares" does not means "all fares".

As regards the household saving, I was stating a fact. See eg

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-a3398766.html

I wasn't going to state baldly that "the average household will save
£200" because *I* haven't the evidence to prove that. Have you?

I'm not the one questioning it.


Given I'm not questioning it why do you ask *me* if I have evidence to
prove it wrong?



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:16:27 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

If would be a very rare council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

...

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax
subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like
a TFL area.

It's not a TfL area, but you raised the issue of council tax payers (I'm
one) using PT, and I don't.

Only in the context of London council tax payers 'subsidising' TFL.

Up to you to complain to your council if you think you get a poor deal.

--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 00:31:05 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

If would be a very rare

cough London

council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

...

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax
subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like
a TFL area.

It's not a TfL area, but you raised the issue of council tax payers (I'm
one) using PT, and I don't.

Only in the context of London council tax payers 'subsidising' TFL.

Even adding in the missing 'London', I don't actually agree, and quoted
my own experience on the matter.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:31:05 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

If would be a very rare

cough London

council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

...

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax
subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like
a TFL area.

It's not a TfL area, but you raised the issue of council tax payers (I'm
one) using PT, and I don't.

Only in the context of London council tax payers 'subsidising' TFL.

Even adding in the missing 'London', I don't actually agree, and quoted
my own experience on the matter.

Don't really see how choosing to live in an area with poor PT has any
relevance to the situation in the TFL area where PT is generally very good.

--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 10:09:45 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
If would be a very rare

cough London

council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

...

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax
subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like
a TFL area.

It's not a TfL area, but you raised the issue of council tax payers (I'm
one) using PT, and I don't.

Only in the context of London council tax payers 'subsidising' TFL.

Even adding in the missing 'London', I don't actually agree, and quoted
my own experience on the matter.

Don't really see how choosing to live in an area with poor PT has any
relevance to the situation in the TFL area where PT is generally very good.

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL
area.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:09:45 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
If would be a very rare

cough London

council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and won't
ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the household the
council tax is levied on.

...

I'm getting a bit confused by this. Are you saying your council tax
subsidises TFL? The talk of village and one bus an hour doesn't sound like
a TFL area.

It's not a TfL area, but you raised the issue of council tax payers (I'm
one) using PT, and I don't.

Only in the context of London council tax payers 'subsidising' TFL.

Even adding in the missing 'London', I don't actually agree, and
quoted my own experience on the matter.

Don't really see how choosing to live in an area with poor PT has any
relevance to the situation in the TFL area where PT is generally very
good.

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no overground?

There was a time when you needed different tickets for overground and tube.

But with TFL it's integrated.

Other thing of course is most council charges are for a household. Where
others than the CC payer can use PT.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 14:31:37 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no overground?

Surbiton. And it was years before TfL's Overground, which even today
would have marginal utility.

--
Roland Perry

On 27/07/18 15:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:31:37 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

And it was years before TfL's Overground, which even today
would have marginal utility.



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

In message , at 15:43:36 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.

--
Roland Perry

On 27/07/18 16:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:36 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
Â*area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Â*Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.
You said '*and* no overground'
It has.



--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:31:37 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton. And it was years before TfL's Overground, which even today
would have marginal utility.

Surbiton has a pretty reasonable overground service? The equal of an end
of line tube service elsewhere?

The beauty of TFL is you can use any of its services with the same 'ticket'

I've often wondered why TFL chose to name that newish service the
overground. It's essentially just a re-vamped railway service, using
mainly existing tracks and stations.

At least crossrail says what it is.

--
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:36 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.

Eh? Surbiton is within the TFL area. I doubt TFL provide figures of any
subsidy route by route.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/18 16:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:36 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.
You said '*and* no overground'
It has.

It depends on whether you mean "above ground lines " - it has or "The
Overground" and LT brand name for some surface lines it operates. - It
hasn't. You need to to go to Clapham Junction to find that.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/18 16:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:36 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.
You said '*and* no overground'
It has.

It depends on whether you mean "above ground lines " - it has or "The
Overground" and LT brand name for some surface lines it operates. - It
hasn't. You need to to go to Clapham Junction to find that.

Suburban rail services have been known as the overground for as long as I
can remember. Don't approve of TFL hijacking the name for one line - what
will they call the next similar they open, if they do?

The only difference is the type of carriage. More like an underground one
seating wise - but with the additional benefit of easy movement between
carriages (no doors). So maximum standing space. But basically just a
train.

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 16:26:55 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
*area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

*Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten,
has no services subsidised by TfL.

You said '*and* no overground'

It has.

It wasn't invented then, and today the nearest is at Richmond.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:52:10 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.
You said '*and* no overground'
It has.

It depends on whether you mean "above ground lines " - it has or "The
Overground" and LT brand name for some surface lines it operates. - It
hasn't. You need to to go to Clapham Junction to find that.

Suburban rail services have been known as the overground for as long as I
can remember. Don't approve of TFL hijacking the name for one line - what
will they call the next similar they open, if they do?

The only difference is the type of carriage.

Completely off topic. The main difference is that Overground is
subsidised from Londoners' council tax, the suburban rail services
aren't.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:14:05 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.

Eh? Surbiton is within the TFL area. I doubt TFL provide figures of any
subsidy route by route.

TfL don't subsidise SWR. Period.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:08:41 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:31:37 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton. And it was years before TfL's Overground, which even today
would have marginal utility.

Surbiton has a pretty reasonable overground service? The equal of an end
of line tube service elsewhere?

It has a good national rail service, but that's not subsidised by London
Council Tax payers, via TfL.

The beauty of TFL is you can use any of its services with the same 'ticket'

And the reason the Mayor's price cap promise doesn't work for people in
Surbiton is even though you might be seduced into thinking that a
Travelcard is somehow a "TfL ticket", the element set aside for trips on
TOCs like SWR can't be frozen via the kind generosity of London Council
Tax payers.
--
Roland Perry

On 27/07/18 17:19, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/07/18 16:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:36 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton.

Has a station.

But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten, has
no services subsidised by TfL.
You said '*and* no overground'
It has.

It depends on whether you mean "above ground lines " - it has or "The
Overground" and LT brand name for some surface lines it operates. - It
hasn't. You need to to go to Clapham Junction to find that.

'overground' was not specified with a capital O...

FRankly I dont give a ****, but having both been born in Surbiton and
spent 7 years of by life going through it on a train, I just felt the
statement '*and* no overground?' was inapplicable.

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 27/07/18 18:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:26:55 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, The Natural Philosopher remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the
Â*area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?
Â*
Â*Surbiton.

Has a station.

Â*But as I explained; and you either didn't read, or have forgotten,
hasÂ* no services subsidised by TfL.

You said '*and* no overground'

It has.

It wasn't invented then, and today the nearest is at Richmond.

'overground' was invented in 1800s

as was 'underground'.

You are probaly confusing it with Overground...

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 27/07/2018 18:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:08:41 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Â* Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:31:37 on Fri, 27 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I described how I almost never used (TfL's) PT when living in the TfL
area.

You described an area which sounds rather odd. No tube *and* no
overground?

Surbiton. And it was years before TfL's Overground, which even today
would have marginal utility.

Surbiton has a pretty reasonable overground service? The equal of an end
of line tube service elsewhere?

It has a good national rail service, but that's not subsidised by London
Council Tax payers, via TfL.

The beauty of TFL is you can use any of its services with the same
'ticket'

And the reason the Mayor's price cap promise doesn't work for people in
Surbiton is even though you might be seduced into thinking that a
Travelcard is somehow a "TfL ticket", the element set aside for trips on
TOCs like SWR can't be frozen via the kind generosity of London Council
Tax payers.

I'm with you on much of the above as ISTM you did capitalise Overground.
But on a pointy of detail I think TfL's operating subsidy comes from
business rates.

The council tax pays for the revenues lost due to the Freedom Pass; is
in my view not a subsidy so much as a bulk purchase; and does go to both
TfL and to TOCs. At least it did last time I looked at the almighty
complex system of annual settlements with TfL and the ATOC and London
Service Permit route operators, and apportionment between boroughs. (I
gave it a firm and manly look; and then moved on.)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message , at
20:57:40 on Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Robin remarked:
I'm with you on much of the above as ISTM you did capitalise
Overground. But on a pointy of detail I think TfL's operating subsidy
comes from business rates.

Upthread (which is what started this discussion) someone said:

## There will be no more general grants from the government for
## day-to-day running of services from 2018 - earlier than TfL thought.

Like yourself, I don't have a great deal of enthusiasm for drilling down
into what grants, what inputs to government pay for the grants etc.

The council tax pays for the revenues lost due to the Freedom Pass; is
in my view not a subsidy so much as a bulk purchase; and does go to
both TfL and to TOCs. At least it did last time I looked at the
almighty complex system of annual settlements with TfL and the ATOC and
London Service Permit route operators, and apportionment between
boroughs. (I gave it a firm and manly look; and then moved on.)

Out in the provinces I think the "bus pass" schemes are paid for much
more directly linked to actual ridership data. Very few are valid for
any form of rail travel though.

--
Roland Perry

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 09:09, michael adams wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

And as a London resident I'd find it hard to explain to people outside London why
central government should give TfL more of their taxes to subsidise travel in London
while Londoners' enjoy a fares freeze.

Well you could start by pointing out that London, followed by the South
East, and to a very small degree the East of England are the only
areas of the UK which actually make a positive contribution to the
UK economy

As the graph, half down this abstract from the ONS shows

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...2015to2016#toc
Country and regional public sector finances: Financial year ending March 2016


In short London contributes around 28 billion, The South East around 15
billion and the East of England around 2 billion. The North West of
England on the other hand produced a 22 billion deficit,
Yorkshire around a 14 million deficit, and Scotland around a
15 billion deficit.


You seem there to be equating net fiscal contribution with contribution to
the UK economy. I thought one usually looked at total public spending as
a proportion of a region's GDP (or more probably GVA).

One might indeed normally do that. But in this case had one been
reading the newspapers over the past two years - ever since the
referendum in fact - one might have been struck by continual
references to the fact of London's contributing such a large
percentage of the GVA both of the UK and of England.

Of course had one forgotten this, although I find it hard to
imagine how one possibly could, one might I suppose need to
refresh one's memory.

Total GVA (£ million) GVA per head
UK 1,747,647 26,339
England 1,498,221 27,108
London 408,479 46,482
South East 258,902 28,683
North East 50,675 19,218
North West 166,542 23,068

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...duk/1998to2016





Otherwise workers who receive, say, £3,000 p.a.
net more in benefits and public services than they pay in taxes,
duties etc score as a "net loss" to the economy, even if they are
responsible for a net positive £10,000 p.a. contribution to GVA/GDP.

That would only make sense were one able to produce any kind of
satisfactory explanation as to why people who receive more in
benefits than they pay in taxes should be consistently more
productive than anyone else.

So can one ?

Or rather than making up fanciful examples bearing no relation
to reality, might one instead take advantage of the wonders
of the world wide web and look things up for oneself ?

Fat chance !

So that in the above example Londoners are twice as
productive as workers in the North West and well over
twice as productive as workers in the NE. While London
alone is responsible for 23% of the the GVA of the UK as
a whole and 27% of that of England. Whereas astonishingly,
if the figures are to be believed, the NE former home of
Swan Hunter, Dormman Long, Vickers Whitworth, etc etc is
responsible for a mere 2.8% of UK GVA and 3.3% of English GVA.

And we all know who voted most strongly in favour of Brexit,
now, don't we boys and girls ? As the newspapers have been
reminding us ad-nauseam for the past two years. Well some
of us, anyway.


michael adams

....

"Robin" wrote in message
...

Indeed. Which doesn't stop the Mayor, TfL et al continuing to refer
to it as a fares freeze (and claiming the average household will save
around £200 over the next four years).

Indeed. But then that does raise the question as to why, in an earlier
post, when you stated

"And as a London resident I'd find it hard to explain to people outside
London why central government should give TfL more of their taxes to
subsidise travel in London while Londoners' enjoy a fares freeze."

you didn't simply explain to these people outside London that it wasn't
really a fares freeze at all ?

Why would you find it hard to explain, or even want to explain
a fares freeze which wasn't actually a fares freeze, to anyone ?

When you had a clear opportunity there to criticise "the Mayor, TfL et
al" for misleading people in that way, which you chose not to take.

Why was that ?

One might almost be forgiven for thinking that you didn't actually
realise that it wasn't a real fares freeze, until after you'd
made that first post. Until after I'd pointed this out to you;
all references to which you pretended to ignore, by snipping
them completely from your reply.


michael adams

....

Excuse me? This sounds like elitism, and saying lets kill the rest of the
population off if they do not make any money. What kind of world is this?
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 09:09, michael adams wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

And as a London resident I'd find it hard to explain to people outside
London why
central government should give TfL more of their taxes to subsidise
travel in London
while Londoners' enjoy a fares freeze.

Well you could start by pointing out that London, followed by the South
East, and to a very small degree the East of England are the only
areas of the UK which actually make a positive contribution to the
UK economy

As the graph, half down this abstract from the ONS shows

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...2015to2016#toc
Country and regional public sector finances: Financial year ending March
2016


In short London contributes around 28 billion, The South East around 15
billion and the East of England around 2 billion. The North West of
England on the other hand produced a 22 billion deficit,
Yorkshire around a 14 million deficit, and Scotland around a
15 billion deficit.


You seem there to be equating net fiscal contribution with contribution
to
the UK economy. I thought one usually looked at total public spending as
a proportion of a region's GDP (or more probably GVA).

One might indeed normally do that. But in this case had one been
reading the newspapers over the past two years - ever since the
referendum in fact - one might have been struck by continual
references to the fact of London's contributing such a large
percentage of the GVA both of the UK and of England.

Of course had one forgotten this, although I find it hard to
imagine how one possibly could, one might I suppose need to
refresh one's memory.

Total GVA (£ million) GVA per head
UK 1,747,647 26,339
England 1,498,221 27,108
London 408,479 46,482
South East 258,902 28,683
North East 50,675 19,218
North West 166,542 23,068

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...duk/1998to2016





Otherwise workers who receive, say, £3,000 p.a.
net more in benefits and public services than they pay in taxes,
duties etc score as a "net loss" to the economy, even if they are
responsible for a net positive £10,000 p.a. contribution to GVA/GDP.

That would only make sense were one able to produce any kind of
satisfactory explanation as to why people who receive more in
benefits than they pay in taxes should be consistently more
productive than anyone else.

So can one ?

Or rather than making up fanciful examples bearing no relation
to reality, might one instead take advantage of the wonders
of the world wide web and look things up for oneself ?

Fat chance !

So that in the above example Londoners are twice as
productive as workers in the North West and well over
twice as productive as workers in the NE. While London
alone is responsible for 23% of the the GVA of the UK as
a whole and 27% of that of England. Whereas astonishingly,
if the figures are to be believed, the NE former home of
Swan Hunter, Dormman Long, Vickers Whitworth, etc etc is
responsible for a mere 2.8% of UK GVA and 3.3% of English GVA.

And we all know who voted most strongly in favour of Brexit,
now, don't we boys and girls ? As the newspapers have been
reminding us ad-nauseam for the past two years. Well some
of us, anyway.


michael adams

...