London bus passengers. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian
Ken Livingstone at Comment is Free:
Labour will make this [mayoral] election about a real alternative. Central to that is fares. The Tories are committed to raising fares above inflation for years to come. To tax so hard in this way when household finances are under such pressure is shameful. So I will introduce an emergency fares package in October that will wipe out this January's rise, with a 7% cut. I will freeze fares throughout 2013 and then ensure they rise overall by no more than inflation after that. On the issue of fares it will be a referendum on the Tories' rising prices.
Straws in the wind suggest this campaign is making some sort of mark: the Evening Standard, which strikes me as being pretty sweet on the Tory mayor, has admired it; Boris's campaign and its Ken-hating media associates are bashing it bitterly.
Fares are bedrock and bread-and-butter in most Londoners' lives and Team Ken has devised a policy that grabs attention, defines a sharp difference with its main opponent and serves as a flagship for the broader Livingstone campaign theme of protecting "ordinary Londoners" from the effects of government policy. By defining the election as a referendum on the Tories, Ken breaks with his past in binding himself closely to Labour, which as a party has been doing far better in opinion polls of Londoners than Ken himself has. Note too that the fares rise is demeaned as a "tax."
Londoners returning to work tomorrow will encounter "Fare Deal" activists at transport hubs, though Boris's latest hikes come into effect today, in his continuing absence on holiday. The full 2012 tariff board can be perused here and compared with the 2011 package here. A monthly travelcard covering zones 1 to 6 has gone up from £193.60 to £205.10, and an annual one from £2,016 to £2,136. A single bus fare is up from £1.30 to £1.35.
Ken has pledged a 7% cut in October should he win in May. This would apply to the new package, not the 2011 one. Were such a reduction made exactly and evenly across the board, that zone 1 to 6 monthly travelcard would come back down from £205.10 to £190.74, and the annual one from £2,136 to £1,986.48 according to my pocket calculator. In reality, the 7% cut would be an average and individual prices would be rounded to nearby tidy multiples, but you're getting the idea. As well as reversing the 2012 hikes they'd undercut the 2011 package by small amounts. Ken has made a specific pledge on the single bus fare, saying it would come down to £1.20. It was 90 pence when Boris came to power four years ago.
Boris's fares policy has come under renewed attack from Brian Paddick for the Liberal Democrats too. He's emphasised that it's Boris's fourth inflation-plus increase in a row and singles out bus fares for particular scorn, as buses are the public transport mode most used by the low paid. Interestingly, he deploys the word "shameful," just as Ken does. Caroline Pidgeon, the Lib Dem transport spokesperson on the London Assembly and the party's deputy mayoral candidate, proposes "targeted measures" to help those on the lowest incomes, including cheaper "early bird" fares and a one-hour bus pass - a policy she's championed some time.
The Green Party's mayoral candidate and London Assembly member Jenny Jones has been taken a more nuanced line on fares. In December, when Ken announced his 7% pledged, she told Mayorwatch that she was, "Pleased fare decreases are being discussed," but was also "concerned that Ken Livingstone isn't able to fund his proposals on a sustained basis." She said that fares decreases, "Must be financed with credible, alternative income that ensures the burden shifts towards more polluting traffic away from public transport users."
Her remarks effectively anticipated publication of Professor John Whitelegg's Green-commissioned report on a possible Londonwide pay-as-you-go road-pricing system that could bring in at least £1 billion a year. It could be that the Green candidate will offer the boldest vision for addressing London's transport problems, largely by linking them very directly to environmental issues.
Boris has been notably conservative in this respect. Tomorrow will see his introduction of phase 3 of London Low Emission Zone, which requires vans and minibuses entering it to comply with EU pollution rules or pay a daily fine. Transport for London's press release is headed "Mayor hails new measures in 2012 to deliver cleaner air for London," but in fact Boris has delayed bringing in these measures by 15 months. Today, he claims they are a triumph, but last April he complained that they were being "imposed" on the capital by the European Commission.
Update, 09:35 Jenny Jones has sent me a comment in direct response to today's fares increases:
These rises show the Mayor's inexperience in balancing the books for Londoners. It's not only about money, it's also our quality of life. He's hurting everyone, but mostly the low paid who already struggle to pay the high cost of public transport to get to work. Plus the rises mean that using cars becomes more viable and that's worse for air pollution, congestion and road danger.
Thanks for that.
From Cyclists in the City
From The London Word
Comments
2 January 2012 8:48AM
Privatisation was 'sold' to the electorate as being a more efficient and 'Cost effective' way of running the old State Controlled Nationalised Industries. In reality and without exception we have seen price hikes above inflation, Skills & Jobs lost abroad, and services cut to the point where areas have now become a backwater of inactivity - unless you own a car etc.
The Privatisation of Rail resulted in annual fares rising at rates greatly above the annual rate of inflation. Plus a Government subsidy to the rail industry which is now 5 times greater than when it was owned by the State! (Adjusted to 1997 values).
The Rail Network was decimated with rural stations in the outlying districts 40 years ago under Marple & Beeching. Hardly helps with current Road congestion!
But of course the Tory sees this as an opportunity! An opportunity to level additional charges for you to drive your very expensive car on New, soon to be built, 'Privately owned Roads'. This in turn will make Rail travel appear more competitive so the Fat Cats can increase Rail fares further -'commensurate with the competition'.
2 January 2012 10:04AM
As a lifelong Labour voter, I cannot find it within myself to vote for Ken. For a start, his proposed changes to the fare structure, whilst admirable, rely on increasing the capacity of services, often where there is no spare capacity available. Certainly anyone that uses the Northern Line knows that it is a rare time now that stations like London Bridge or Bank are NOT congested.
My other reason for not wanting to vote for Ken, from a transport planning point of view, is that during his time as Mayor he seemed to suffer from some sort of Stalinist-era thinking. That everything needed to be centralised and controlled from Central London. This meant that in most of the outer London boroughs, whilst you could easily find buses heading INTO town, it was often harder to traverse boroughs in the other direction.
The Fare Deal, a "modernised version" of his Fare's Fair campaign from his GLC days fails on several levels and is not a sustainable model for transport improvement.
There are a great deal of complex and nuanced issues behind transport, and whilst it is fair to say that there have been huge improvements in public transport since 1999, there is not much more capacity available, and with the 2012 Olympics not too far off now, we can expect things to be more uncomfortable in the future!
2 January 2012 10:06AM
I'm still waiting for an explanation from the champions of privatisation as to why the benefits have accrued mainly to the privateers and not to the customers and consumers. Utilities sold to the highest bidder, from no matter where, continually increasing prices and services no better than under public administration were not part of the spin broadcast from the late 70s onwards.
Worst of all, rail privatisation is STILL costing the taxpayer more than the nationalised rail system,according to a recent report.
All those who believe in privatisation, please tell us what went wrong. The reality is a million miles from the Tories' 1979 campaign propaganda.
As for Boris Johnson, I call for a media blackout on all his activities until after the mayoral election. His too frequent media appearances appear to give him a very undeserved advantage in any election he fights.
Beware David Cameron!
Happy new year carren and thanks for waking me up on a bank holiday morning!
2 January 2012 10:12AM
A single bus fare is up from £1.30 to £1.35.
My heart bleed for you, I traveled three mile on a bus that had water running up and down the ailes a few weeks ago the cost for this privelidge, £2.40 a single journey, welcome to the real world London. We do not get a London weighting allowance. if your not happy living in or around London, do as one prominent Tory told us get on your bikes! After all it is down your way that most folk vote Tory.
2 January 2012 10:17AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
2 January 2012 10:17AM
I would lift the council tax rates above the band £500k threshold ( progressive tax) and with all that cash improve TFL.
Make the oligarchs and the wealthy pay something., FFS.
Rough calculation means that the Duke of Westminsters estates alone would have to cough up about £7 BN. p.a.
Use the money on fare subsidies (50%) and infrastructure improvements (50%)
Why not???
That'll sort things out .
2 January 2012 10:29AM
Thanks for that interesting comment - food for thought. But as a lifelong Labour supporter does it not bother you that failing to vote for Ken would mean helping Conservative Boris to win four more years of power and damage Labour's chances nationally in the process?
2 January 2012 10:49AM
just because it's crap for you doesn't mean it should be crap for us too. rubbish logic.
and as another poster said, people in london usually vote labour, it's the nobheads surrounding it that get the blues in.
2 January 2012 10:50AM
Would increased capacity be possible with a reduction in private vehicles? if so could we not put the burden onto the private car, there's a lot of vehicles on the roads that should be undertaken by public transport but none of the mainstream parties will risk plain talking. Tax all car journeys for their pollutive and anti-social behaviour. Support cycling and public transport - problem solved and we all get healthier cities (and rural areas) to live in.
oh but wait democracy means we get polluted cities- forgot people think of their pocket before their lungs.
2 January 2012 10:55AM
Why is it the only solid argument for voting labour is not to let the bogeyman in? surely we should be voting for the best policies, laid out in the best way and by politicians who value the truth and who are happy to be in opposition as much as in power.
I would rather have had the tories in and a decent opposition than the fake socialists we had for the last 13 years.
Vote green , vote anything, but for F***S sake vote.
2 January 2012 10:59AM
TfL have a fair bit of spare dosh at the moment but it looks like Boris is keeping it back for the elections.
They are being very, very cagey about plans for it.
It could have been used to stop the fare increases, but no.
Transport at the time of the Olympics is going to be awful - Boris is keeping low on the 'needed' reduction in commuters of 30%, how this is to be achived is not clear - even Boris hasn't a clue (no change there then). Employers have had no answer to how thier staff are to get to work or who will compensate, locals haven't got a clue about how they are supposed to get about, cyclists are to be banned from the Olympic area and the estimated delay times should anyone consider trying the Blackwall tunnel ought to have 'pack a meal, blanket and a spare bottle to pee in' added to the advice.
But Boris is banking on 'Olympic fever' to get him through the elections - he doesn't give a shit as long as the athletes are able to travel (no clue about how the extra security will screw things over). He only wants 'Boris' Olympics' on his CV - the rest of us can go and screw themselves.
2 January 2012 11:47AM
Privatisation has indeed been a disaster and should be reversed, but Labour had 13 years in office and never delivered on its promise of renationalisation - another broken promise from Labour alongside no more boom and bust, electoral reform, improved education, financial prudence etc.
What I really dislike about this mayoral race is that it is being forced into the old left-right straitjacketed slanging match without much of a look in from the other candidates. Voters should remember that with the AV system (yeah, you know the one that both the Tories and the left voted down last year), there is no such thing as a wasted vote.
Ken Livingstone did some very good things for London but is too much in the pockets of people like Bob Crow and other special interest groups to represent London as a whole. He is simply yesterday's man and represents narrow, sectional interests.
Boris Johnson is only Mayor because his Eton and Oxford pal Geordie Greig, who edits the Evening Standard helped put him there. He is way out of his competence zone and has consistently failed to help worse off Londoners.
We should be looking at what the Lib Dem Paddick and the Green Jenny Jones have got to say rather than being trapped into the stale old, destructive Tory-Labour politics. We have needed something new for London more than we do now.
2 January 2012 11:49AM
"We have needed something new for London more than we do now."
Should read:
"We have never needed something new for London more than we do now."
Why can't we edit these comments?
2 January 2012 11:52AM
There's never been a better time for the Liberal Democrats' £2 million Mansion Tax.
You can hide cash abroad, but you can't hide a millionaire's mansion in Kensington or Hampstead.
2 January 2012 12:12PM
Bus fares are affecting mainly those public transport users from inner Londoner who vote(d) Ken regardless of the will of the tabloids propietors (who pounded the minds of the impressionable suburbanites and who in their turn came out in force and voted Tory out of an almost alarmist sense of duty)
I am not entirely sure that those voters living in the outter suburbs (and who hate Ken because they were reapeatedly told to do so) do actually care about the state of London's public transport.
(they all seem to be self-sufficient Mondeo Men who despise public transport and heed Jeremy Clarkson)
I really can't see what Ken can possibly do in order to curry favour with this particular segment of inward looking people whose trumping votes Guv'nor BoJo can take for granted as he is their greatly respected role model)
2 January 2012 12:37PM
Just stop prevaricating and vote Labour.
The alternative is 4 more years of the insufferable Boris for goodness sake!
2 January 2012 1:05PM
'Transport at the time of the Olympics is going to be awful.'
Not if you're an official with one of those 4,000 BMWs and a chauffeur at your disposal it isn't.
What an evil racket it all is.
2 January 2012 1:17PM
"Just stop prevaricating and vote Labour. "
For what, four more years of corruption, cronyism and divisive special interest politics coupled with Livingstone's apparent inability to understand transport budgets?
It's time to start thinking afresh, and that means ditching Boris and Ken's Punch and Judy politics.
2 January 2012 1:23PM
A brave mayoral candidate would take a look at the London fare zones (which date back 30-odd years) and start again. Most other world cities have flat (or effectively flat) fares, don't charge for switching between modes (ie - one fare covers one journey via suburban rail/metro/bus).
Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any brave mayoral candidates at the moment.
2 January 2012 1:25PM
I like Ken, but as slogans go, that's like being offered the choice between a punch in the head or a kick up the bum.
2 January 2012 2:54PM
No idea on your general arguments - I haven't lived in London for over 20 years.
But ...
"This meant that in most of the outer London boroughs, whilst you could easily find buses heading INTO town, it was often harder to traverse boroughs in the other direction."
What are you claiming, that the buses snuck round the side or had their own secret tunnels?
2 January 2012 3:17PM
2 January 2012 4:00PM
TfL is a public body, not private. It's a small point, but it does rather render your post somewhat irrelevant.
2 January 2012 4:05PM
Maybe sotiredofitall is a lifelong supporter of what Labour once was, and not the present bunch of swivel-eyed right-wingers.
Trying to get people to vote for a party to keep the bogeyman out doesn't say much for the party, do it? Wouldn't it be better if people voted for Labour because it stands for something? Because it can be a force for positive change?
When all you have left is negative arguments, you are left with nothing.
2 January 2012 5:14PM
It's a simple choice between a progressive with a track record of using his powers to improve the environment and resistribute wealth to the poorest and squeezed middle as opposed to a multi-millionaire Bullingdon boy who campaigns to have the top-rate of income tax cut whilst jacking up bus fares by more than 50%.
Ken introduced 7,000 police officers and cut crime Tory Johnson has cut 600 plans, to axe another 1,900 and has presided over a massive rise in crime.
Ken ensured that every new housing development had a large proportion of affordable home Tory Johnson axed it. His party will make at least 150,000 London families homeless.
Tory Johnson calls black people 'piccaninnies' and gor rid of the Rise anti-racism drive whilst ken has a great record on im[proving race relations.
There is lots more so don't tell me Labour and Ken don't stand for anything
2 January 2012 6:02PM
Rather than vote for Ken just because he is Labour out of some misplaced loyalty, does it not bother you or your conscience that Ken`s cronyism, blatant egotistical self promotion and lack of regard for anything apart from grabbing power again on top of cynical references and calling people Nazi`s is not a worthwhile reason to vote him in? Furthermore did we not see plenty of fare increases under Ken? He soon found the money for a glossy magazine sent to Londoners to promote his own policies, something we might expect in Moscow but not here. I would vote for the best candidate, irrespective of his tribal loyalty so fair play to the earlier poster who was Anti-Ken, so am I!
2 January 2012 6:03PM
Well, no, it isn't that simple, actually.
Ken is backed and funded by trade unionists and therefore is just as much guilty of factional politics as Boris and his penchant for London's financiers. Ken is notoriously soft on the tube workers who regularly hold London to hostage as they hike up their salaries and demand special treatment.
Personally I'd rather vote for someone who views Londoners as citizens rather than just pawns in a bloc vote strategy.
2 January 2012 6:06PM
Was this taken from a Labour party press release / spin document as it is complete drivel and more so most people know better than to believe this.
2 January 2012 6:22PM
I will vote for Ken (second, after the Greens - making my PR point) but I will never forgive him for the bluddy olympics. A massive horror to match his massive ego.
2 January 2012 6:33PM
I see Boris is quoted elsewhere saying that the fare rises would have been bigger but for the £100m plus bunged to him by George Osborne. Practically admitting that it was a "re-elect Boris" bribe from the Tories.
2 January 2012 6:52PM
I'll be giving one of my votes to Ken and neither to Boris because Ken has better transport and housing policies than Boris and is the only candidate who can beat him. He'll probably have better policies than Boris in most other areas where the London mayor has power and influence too. Also, Ken has a good track record in office on most of the issues that matter most. Boris has a very patchy one. Simple as that.
2 January 2012 7:24PM
What has Boris actually done apart from up his profile?
2 January 2012 7:37PM
A very good question indeed....
2 January 2012 10:09PM
yes, the fare increases have only affected london.
*note, London actually receives a transport subsidy of many multiples of any other area in the UK.
2 January 2012 10:49PM
Rather the Green candidate over either Ken or Boris. Labour might have been giving priority to had it been some new blood with a fresh and ambitious vision (certainly not Oona King) instead of the same face.
3 January 2012 2:04AM
Dave, old chum. Are you supposed to say you are voting Lab/Green?
Anyway, if Ken won the bus fare drop would be firstly paid for by putting up the Mayor's precept (which went up 147 percent between 2000 and 2008) then by new bridge tolls.
They can do this through the Supplemental Tolls Bills and can, in theory, toll all the roads owned by TFL in Greater London.
However, this clip from the Lords in 2008 when the bill was passed and at the end of the Baronesses speech she slips in the idea that TFL is considering tolling the bridges over the Thames.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9526000/9526358.stm
from 1.36m......
The Baronesses' speech waffles on about '...allowing sophisticated modern mechanisms to pay tolls...bill deliberately drafted in general terms'.
However (see 6.00m on the clip) the first move will be tolling all Thames bridges (because the traffic moves slowly enough for windscreen-mounted charge cards to be 'read' by overhead detectors) supposedly to pay for a new bridge at Silvertown.
However, we can all see how Leninspart will use the money to cross-subsidise the bus fare chop.
Air Quality tolls are also on the menu. The speech also suggests that 'cars' that do not meet certain pollution standards' could be charged 'possibly at the time of the Olympics'. Odd, when most of the pollution comes from diesel commercial vehicles.
You read it here first...
3 January 2012 2:27AM
Oh yeah....the proposed 20mph speed limit on the Thames bridges will also help the overhead cameras read the 'auto oyster' cards on the vehicle windscreens.
3 January 2012 9:12AM
Your logic is pretty crap too. Nobheads vote Labour. Labour were in power from 1997-2010 and did nothing about the long standing ' Rip Off UK ' culture.
3 January 2012 9:49AM
I am not aware of what his policies are or how he will fund them - perhaps you can enlighten us?
3 January 2012 1:10PM
Crikey, you're all over the place. It's a shame you can't even get basic details correct.
No it will not. Most bridges over the Thames are managed and owned by the boroughs, so even with your tinfoil hat on, this:
does not empower that to happen.
Secondly the clips you are referring to and the Supplemental Tolls Bill passed the Lords in June this year not 2008. If you'd read the text underneath the video you'd know this. The Baroness was talking about it because she is a Boris appointee to the TfL Board. So actually if there are any plans to increase tolling they are Boris's plans.
Try and keep up.
3 January 2012 1:28PM
Mr DJ....listen again.
The 'noble baroness' specifically says that TFL might consider tolling bridges to pay for a new crossing at Silvertown.
This rather overrides your attempts to muddy the water.
More to the point, TFL can toll the bridgeheads, where they are part of the TFL-controlled network.
Any such powers would be seized by Lenin because his only consistent political idea is to make bus fares as low as possible, if not free. Only mass road tolling allows him to pull in serious revenue.
Before Lenin was kicked out, a legal boundary for Greater London was created. Go and look it up. It looks remarkably like a tolling border.
3 January 2012 2:13PM
You're some piece of work, I'll grant you that. I see we've moved effortlessly from (in your own words):
However (see 6.00m on the clip) the first move will be tolling all Thames bridges (my bold)
to
TFL can toll the bridgeheads, where they are part of the TFL-controlled network. (my bold again)
which is not most bridges in London. You didn't even miss a beat.
Secondly you've not addressed why, if the powers are so broad and dangerous as you are trying to claim, that Boris wants them - as he obtained them? If he wasn't planning to use them why would he need them? After all if it was just for the Silvertown crossing he could have specifically written that into his Bill.
What you mean like the boundary any administrative area has?
By:
I'll take a stab at 'muddy the water' meaning 'point out the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in your argument', if you think argument is what it passes for.
3 January 2012 3:22PM
Oh and just a final question for you, when you say:
What Bill are you thinking that was in? It wouldn't perchance be what was then called "Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill 2006" would it? Because if it was then I have a bit of a shock for you. That Bill is in fact the same bill that Boris has just seen through the process in Parliament. It's just taken a while to get there. He could of course have withdrawn it if he didn't like the powers it conferred on him. So that would mean that it's Boris that's created what you're calling the "tolling boundary" - what does he need that for?
3 January 2012 4:19PM
Well. why Boris has let it through is a good question, though his control over the Leninite elements in TFL has been lamentable.
I'm amazed the bill took so long, but I don't understand it, when it seemed to have gone through the Lords in 2007.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/transportforlondonsupplementaltollprovisionshl.html
I do know that the original proposed powers to seize and enter private cars was opposed after I read the bill and flagged up Lenin's plans for his own militia on Guido and Iain Dale.
But the parliamentary website says
'The second reading of the Bill has been repeatedly opposed. A blocking motion has been tabled by a Member of Parliament which, while it remains in place, will effectively prevent the bill receiving a second reading until a debate is held. No date for a debate has yet been agreed. The table above shows the progress of the Bill and the next date the motion will be taken.'
The bill had a '2nd reading: House of Commons (no debate) | 20.12.2011'
So maybe, the Conservatives are blocking it at a very late stage because of the powers it would confer on a future mayor. Claims that the bill would only be used for newly-constructed roads must be wrong, as the Baroness makes clear in the video.
Yes, the bridges are owned by the boroughs. Should have remembered, especially as I got involved in smoking out K&C when they threatened to close Albert bridge south-bound. (They blamed 'heavy' SUVs for damaging the bridge. In fact, it was 2 tonne black cabs).
But tolling the bridgeheads gets around that. As would transfer of the bridges to TFL as part of the 'strategic roads network'.
So, maybe the bill has been stalled. I thought that once it went through the Lords, it was in. Hats off to whoever is stalling it, though.
But, I'll say it again....if Lenin gets in and has the powers, he will bring in more tolling and bridge tolling - for the technical reasons I've given - is the clear choice.
3 January 2012 4:23PM
Weird.
Look at the timing of the bill, here
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/transportforlondonsupplementaltollprovisionshl/documents.html
Bill as brought from the Lords on 30 June 2011 30.06.2011
Bill as amended in House of Lords Unopposed Bill Committee 18.11.2008
Where was the bill between Nov 2008 and June 2011?
3 January 2012 5:18PM
@CaptainJustice
A land value tax would be a better idea.
Although it would be passed on to leaseholders and tennants, so the Duke of Westminster wouldn't be paying much out himself.
3 January 2012 5:22PM
@ElmerPhudd
Thats the money for the tube upgrades.
A plan of building up a reserve for which Ken started it. This was to stop the constant sticking-plaster approach to fixing the tube as there was not enough money in one year to do any major improvements.
3 January 2012 7:31PM
Isn't this news?
Hard- pressed Londoners will benefit from almost a £30 million windfall, as the Mayor Boris Johnson outlined plans to freeze his share of the council tax (GLA precept) for the fourth consecutive year.
This takes to £120.5m the total sum awarded by Government in recognition of the continued financial prudence achieved over this Mayoral term, which has seen the Mayor secure the delivery of savings of nearly £2 billion. The £27.7 million is in addition to the estimated £92.8 million that the Mayor was awarded for freezing the GLA precept last year.
Also Ms Dedring of TFL says that 40 percent of bus passengers in London are either on free or discounted fares....that says a huge amount.
4 January 2012 7:49AM
That'll mostly be children and older people, exactly who you'd expect to have susidised travel, so what's the big deal?
4 January 2012 9:58AM
@newsed1
Four major London bridges (Tower, London, Southwark and Blackfriars) are owned and self-financed by the Bridge House Estate.
I wouldn't want to transfer the bridge to TfL whe they work well now.