Boris's Inflation beating fares rises!

[Huguenot]

I like Ken, and continue to. Boris isn't so bad either.

My general feeling is that both have been an asset to London, and that the overall London Mayor bit has been a terrific advantage to both the Capital and the nation, regardless of who held the role.

Whilst I'm in a significant minority in my support for Blair, I think that the New Labour choice of Frank Dobson would have been a disaster for London, and a reflection of Blair's overreach in control.

I'm a firm believer that politicians don't actually control that much in terms of discretionary spend, and so Ken and Boris can't possibly have done that much for better or worse to fundamentally alter the city. However, they have done much to alter the psychology and self confidence of residents, and through empowerment of the electorate created a positive impact on infrastructure investment.

Personally, I'd like to see either, both or the next candidate take on the private taxi business. Door to door transport is a fundamental driver in private car ownership, and an effective private hire business could reduce car ownership dramatically.

I think Chavez was pissing in the wind if he thought a deal with Ken could alter UK Plc attitudes to Venezuelan politics, so whatever Ken offered for the rebate was peanuts in real terms. So then the only choice you'd have to make in retaining it would be a moral one. Will you take from a disenfranchised nation to support London?

[david_carnell]

Whilst I think e-dealer's points are weak I agree with his overarching point.

With housing benefit and welfare reforms meaning that more people are being moved away from expensive inner London housing to cheaper housing in the suburbs, the ability to commute to your place of work will be essential.

If fares are rising, are wages are remaining static then the Tory commitment to making work pay becomes harder and harder. I think subsidised, cheap, efficient transport is not only "A Good Thing" but actually results in a more productive economy as people get to work quickly and efficiently.

[Huguenot]

I was intrigued by the idea that we have been overcome by contemporary definitions of Fiat currencies.

You need to give me some time on this one, but I hope you'll find it...

Currency has been established as a way of trading on a barter basis (I give you two tomatoes for your four potatoes) that triangulated.. i.e. we don't have a transaction directly, so we use currency to shortcut more diverse exchanges (you give me 2 quid, and I'll spend it on someone else's computer chips).

All well and good.

The essence is that it's an exchange of like for like goods and services.

The credit crunch is that the principle has broken. That means there are people who want to paint the house, and we want the house painted, but somebody else has broken the system that allows us to transact.

The current currency is corrupt - it has been traded by people who don't trade goods and services but gamble and speculate upon future availability - to the point that we can't transact.

BUT Fiat currencies are intellectual constructions. They have nothing to do with our existence right here right now.

Are we not capable of creating new barter points, and new currencies that carry similar trusts?

Everybody fucked by the credit crunch wants to trade, but are prevented by an existing model.

Is there not an opportunity that we could trade regardless?

[Huguenot]

The debt is not owned by us, but by the people who wish to trade in that currency.

If we choose to exchange our own currency, and not trade in the currency in which others have acquired their wealth, then their currency has no impact upon our lives.

We are, by definition, in charge of our own destinies.