Its blatantly obvious that they’ve not chosen them because they’re good names or to honour history, but because they link to minority groups and they know that will appease progressives that aren’t satisfied that things are diverse enough, thereby promoting themselves as inclusive and progressive without actually taking any genuinely helpful action. Similarly to how the BBC and ITV had a moral panic and mass hired TV anchors of ethnic minority groups not long ago just to stop people saying only white men read the news.
There’s nothing wrong with that (although re. the example there, I personally would not want to be hired purely to make the employer look good, I’d be insulted to be take on for anything other than my abilities and suitability) but it cannot be denied that it’s clear virtue signalling by TfL to make the Mayor look good. Anyone who disagrees is in denial.
Agreed. It’s very clear what’s going on from the clumsy nature of the names chosen (with the possible exception of Windrush); the “Lioness line”, in particular, is frankly embarrassing. Why would anyone name a railway line after a football team’s nickname?
It’s political, transport and politics don’t go well together - indeed there’s a history of political interference doing immense damage to the provision of transport. The PPP fiasco on London Underground is an example.
Indeed. Unfortunately the mayoralty, since its creation, has only added to the awkward shoe horning of political agendas into the capital’s transport issues. I suppose there’s a long history of this kind of thing in London, dating right back to the days of the GLC.
These bizarre and clumsy names are just the latest breakout of that.