Perhaps not, but you weren't paying for them either.
Boris scraps The Londoner
- Thread starter Mitre10
- Start date
Perhaps not, but you weren't paying for them either.
PacificOcean
Unhinged User
I use to like the "Ask Ken" letters page in The Londoner. It always had letters like:
"Dear Ken,
How do you manage to be such a brilliant mayor and still find the time to bring huge benefits to London with the Olympics and improvements to the tube?"
"Dear Ken,
How do you manage to be such a brilliant mayor and still find the time to bring huge benefits to London with the Olympics and improvements to the tube?"
citydreams
on the road again
You're bonkers. The Evading Standards doesn't care about facts.
PacificOcean
Unhinged User
I don't think they made that much difference
The are 8 million Londoners and the Standard only has sales of about 270,000.
The are 8 million Londoners and the Standard only has sales of about 270,000.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
The sort of sycophantic drivel that wouldn't have been out of place in the Pyongyang Daily Times or the Baghdad Observer.
We all know that, but if I don't buy that slanted opinionated rag (& I haven't in a decade or so) then it doesn't cost me anything.
Sending out a hard copy of a glorified PR paper to everyone on the electoral roll does cost me, and I'd rather they didn't if there was a cheaper way of getting the same information across without omitting anyone.
It has nothing to do with party politics or whether I prefer Ken or Boris as mayor.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
That one was fucking scary. I don't mean the poster scared me. I mean the thought that a bunch of officials and politicians thought that it would be comforting. Fucking weird
citydreams
on the road again
Only since they launched their free-papers! In 2006 it was at 300,000. In 2003 it was at 400,000. How many hits does thisislondon get?? Besides, The Times only has a circulation of 600,00 nationally.
Then you have to take into account the Standard is read by at least two people per copy.. And that excludes the number of people the read the headlines..
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
How about: Boris doesn't need The Londoner as he already has The Evening Standard?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
It has nothing at all to do with this thread. It merely provides a "ligthening rod" for all the sour-grapes poured forth from the Ken fans, who simply can't accept that perphaps Ken might - just might - have been at least partly responsible for his own loss of election.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
citydreams
on the road again
Who here doesn't accept that?
It doesn't take away from the fact that Boris is a self-serving toff that couldn't run a bath on his own.
By that measure the tories would have been justified spending £20m of tax payers money on a newspaper publicsing the good they did when the sun publicly backed New Labour in '97?
I don't see how you can compare the Evening Standard (privately owned, makes it's money from advertising/cover charge) with the (publicly funded) Londoner. They are totally different publications. I'm not all that convinced that the Evening Standard had much say in the election anyway, only a tiny fraction of those who live in London read it. Many of those will be commuters who don't even live in London and a large amount of those left would have voted conservative regardless.
citydreams
on the road again
And how much do you reckon the Tory government spent on their advertising budget in 97?!
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
I think bearing in mind the amount of self publicism that KL did I think the term 'self serving' applies to the previous incumbent.
I wouldn't trust KL to run a whelk stall to be honest.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
All governments in the modern era have spent millions producing literature explaining/promoting what they have done/plan to do. There are thousands of people in the civil service employed to do this and nothing else.
citydreams
on the road again
s'funny, I can imagine you doing that.
probably be a lot better at it than making sure nasty men don't get their hands on our attractively priced armory.KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
s'funny, I can imagine you doing that.
It isn't attractively priced the Chinese do it cheaper.
I see that Johnson has dropped the legal challenge to the desalination plant that Livingstone had started. In return, Thames Water will try and work out how to let traffic flow a bit better whilst undertaking essential works. Let me get this right. Thames Water get the plant unimpeded, have less incentive to encourage less water usage, and they also have an excuse for delays in the essential pipe works. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
I think the issues of pipeworks and desalination plants are a separate issue. London does need more water and there is a limit to what we can take out of the current water courses and ground water. I believe that there are probably other ways to encourage TW to deal with the leaks and they do seem to be making progress with that.
Personally I'd prefer all desalination plants to be nuclear powered because of emmissions issues.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
What a certain type of person wants instead is to "make water more expensive!" as the solution - the same 'solution' that's touted as the answer to just about every problem we currently face these days.
Or "bring in rationing!" Unsurpisingly, people are starting to grow tired of it (especially in the current times of ever-increasing prices of many essentials).
I agree to an extent, but the deal that he struck is rather, erm, weak. Thames Water will get to slow down on its work and build a plant that means that it won't have a lot of an incentive to fix leaky pipes.
I wonder what other promises he has made to companies prior to the election. I guess we'll find out.
Who are these people?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
A generic morass of people that can be found endlessly screaching to "make this, that and the other more expensive!", "ban this! ban that! Force people to do the other! IT'S ALL FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!". The sort who've had an awful lot of space to make their authoritarian, neo-puritan noise over the last 10 years.
But reducing water usage is not such a bad thing
Makes your bills cheaper.edit: well, should do, but the company would never do it I guess.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
But reducing water usage is not such a bad thing
edit: well, should do, but the company would never do it I guess.
This is one of the contradictions inherent in privatised utilities. Companies such as British Gas go through the motions of encouraging economy, but it is in fact in their interests that we should leave our patio heaters on all night and never get round to insulating the loft. It's about as convincing as tobacco companies funding cancer awareness.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
You scare me.
Can I just point out, in case anyone was in any doubt.
KeyboardJockey is really dim and has strange case of paranoia. The unfortunate problem is that he doesn't seem to realise. Would anyone think, 'god I'm really stupid' and actually mean it?
*puts keyboardjockey on ignore*
