The 2024 London Mayoral Election

[londonbridge]

but Sadiq has explicitly ruled out doing that while he is mayor.

Of course he has, just like how in 2021 he said he had “no plans” to expand ULEZ to outer London…….

 

[DC1989]

Pay per mile is coming at some stage, it's just who has the guts to pull the trigger first, local or national government....

 

[nw1]

That's because places like Orpington and Upminster have nothing in common with London at all, They are former Urban Districts and I would be surprised if Mayor Khan could locate them on a map. You can surely forgive somebody living somewhere like this for considering they don't live in London:

51.376557,0.137905 | Instant Street View

51.376557,0.137905 | Instant Street View

www.instantstreetview.com

This is a house on East Hall Road, which runs from the east of Orpington town towards the M25. Despite being surrounded by open farmland, it is inside London's ULEZ zone, meaning the occupants of that house cannot drive a non-compliant car the half mile or so to the Kent border without paying £12.50; it is about a mile and a half from the nearest TfL bus stop (via an unlit lane with no footpath); it is about eight or nine miles from the nearest Overground station at Penge or Sydenham. I imagine that house is in Council Tax band E or F, so the occupants will pay £576 or £680 in the form of a GLA precept. They could also be forgiven for wondering what they get for that money or why they should bother voting for any of the mayoral candidates.

The issue there is that these kind of locations probably need to be moved out of Greater London and into Kent.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

The issue there is that these kind of locations probably need to be moved out of Greater London and into Kent.

The 1965 London expansion should never had happened, the outer boroughs should have remained in their old counties with Greater London only containing the inner boroughs.

Will Sadiq try to get new powers to force annexation of Staines, Watford & Dartford etc thus the inside of M25 will then be Greater London proper?

 

[Enthusiast]

The issue there is that these kind of locations probably need to be moved out of Greater London and into Kent.

The 1965 London expansion should never had happened, the outer boroughs should have remained in their old counties with Greater London only containing the inner boroughs.

Will Sadiq try to get new powers to force annexation of Staines, Watford & Dartford etc thus the inside of M25 will then be Greater London proper?

Yes the issue is that they should never have been subsumed into "London" in the first place. There are huge swathes of the outer London boroughs similar to the one I illustrated. These are rural areas, many comprising open farmland. They have next to no TfL services, gain nothing from the GLA (apart from pensioners being given free travel on TfL transport they have no realistic access to) and their GLA "precept" is nothing short of them being milked as cash cows to finance the Mayor's largesse in Inner London.

There was one small area which escaped the land grab. This is the story of how the small village of Knockholt, despite being gobbled up by London in 1965, fought a successful campaign to be returned to Kent. The article makes a nice read, but even more informative, the photographs illustrate quite clearly the sort of areas the 1965 scheme considered suitable for inclusion in Greater London. There are still many areas like this spread around the edge of the GLA boundary.

The Village That Wriggled Free From London

Enough was enough.

londonist.com

 

[nw1]

Will Sadiq try to get new powers to force annexation of Staines, Watford & Dartford etc thus the inside of M25 will then be Greater London proper?

I doubt it as many of these extra-London towns are Tory-leaning. Speaking as someone who strongly prefers Labour to the Tories, it's not in Sadiq Khan's interest to "annex" them. (Dartford however is AFAIK a bit different to the other two in the sense that it's in the contiguous urban area).

However, while the rural parishes should probably be moved out, the more urban areas of the outer boroughs do, to me, belong in Greater London. They are part of the contiguous urban area and thus presumably benefit from London services (high frequency buses, cheaper fares, etc) that they would not if they were moved out.

So central Orpington to me seems to belong in Greater London, but Knockholt is correctly-placed in Kent as discussed above and Staines should remain in Surrey.

 

[greatkingrat]

The 1965 London expansion should never had happened, the outer boroughs should have remained in their old counties with Greater London only containing the inner boroughs.

Will Sadiq try to get new powers to force annexation of Staines, Watford & Dartford etc thus the inside of M25 will then be Greater London proper?

Having a Mayor just for Inner London would be completely unworkable. The two main areas the mayor is responsible for are transport and policing, and these cover the whole of Greater London.

You can argue about the odd village on the outskirts, but 99% of the current Greater London is clearly part of the London built up area.

 

[telstarbox]

You could argue it both ways. Dartford town could be in Greater London although the rest of its borough makes sense in Kent. Biggin Hill is free standing and could return to Kent although it would still be isolated from Westerham and Sevenoaks.

Yes there is the odd rural lane around the edge of Greater London but the actual population in these areas is a rounding error for the whole.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You could argue it both ways. Dartford town could be in Greater London although the rest of its borough makes sense in Kent. Biggin Hill is free standing and could return to Kent although it would still be isolated from Westerham and Sevenoaks.

Biggin Hill arguably also benefits from being in London - to the extent that it has excellent bus services for a town of that size (with one of them even extending to Westerham)

 

[Busaholic]

You could argue it both ways. Dartford town could be in Greater London although the rest of its borough makes sense in Kent. Biggin Hill is free standing and could return to Kent although it would still be isolated from Westerham and Sevenoaks.

Yes there is the odd rural lane around the edge of Greater London but the actual population in these areas is a rounding error for the whole.

I think the administrative enlargement of London in 1965 was the right thing. I went to work for the new London Borough of Bromley on leaving school in 1967, in the Libraries Department, and they were still engaged in the process of trying to make sense of how the previous library systems in Penge (London) and ex-Kent Beckenham, Chislehurst, Orpington and Bromley could be merged into a satisfactory new one. I worked on mobile libraries and we covered places as diverse as Penge, Coney Hall, Keston, St Pauls Cray, Biggin Hill, Cudham, Chelsfield, Farnborough and Chislehurst. Money for buying new books was still in very good supply and, on the whole, the new arrangements made things better overall, with no branch libraries closed until years later. Okay, Knockholt successfully advanced their case to return to Kent, but if Biggin Hill, for instance, had done likewise they'd not have the frequent bus service to Bromley they now have from TfL but be reliant on the meagre commercial offerings of Arriva KT or similar.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Having a Mayor just for Inner London would be completely unworkable. The two main areas the mayor is responsible for are transport and policing, and these cover the whole of Greater London.

The Met & TfL etc obviously would be smaller in size only covering inner London therefore it would be quite possible to have an inner London Mayor also there still would be TfL services across the border such as TfL branded bus stops you'd see somewhere like Chigwell right now, Elizabeth Line to Slough etc.

Also with the current hoo-ha with the Met, it may not be a bad thing to "streamline" it to cut out the rotten parts of it, though I accept with the sheer size of today's Greater London this would not be possible. An inner city only Met may not have become the gignatic out of control monster it is now.

Bromley would have been under Kent Police, Romford under Essex Police, Croydon under Surrey Police etc.

 

[nw1]

You could argue it both ways. Dartford town could be in Greater London although the rest of its borough makes sense in Kent. Biggin Hill is free standing and could return to Kent although it would still be isolated from Westerham and Sevenoaks.

Yes there is the odd rural lane around the edge of Greater London but the actual population in these areas is a rounding error for the whole.

I don't know Dartford but it looks from the map that it is part of the urban area, so I've always been puzzled that it wasn't included in Greater London.

Its railway location is clearly also Greater London, as it is effectively the outer terminus of three suburban routes.

 

[Thirteen]

I wonder if Sadiq Khan does win the Mayoral Election if he'll seek a fourth term or if the third term will be his last.

 

[birchesgreen]

He'll be about 57 so it'll be up to him i guess.

 

[Snow1964]

Khan is announcing pledges (again) including working with a Labour Government to bring London suburban rail services under TfL.

Specifically refers to misery of outer London Rail services !

Sadiq Khan has pledged to bring suburban London railway services under TfL's control, creating a 'revolutionary metro-style' system. The mayor - who is seeking another term on May 2 - says he would work with an incoming Labour government, were the British public to elect one. to 'end the misery of failing outer London suburban rail services' if he is re-elected.

Mr Khan says he would 'explore' which lines could be transferred to the control of the capital's transport authority when current contracts expire. Services are currently run by an array of private operators.

He proposed this morning (Friday, April 26) that ‘devolved’ metro-style services could be suburban Southeastern from Kent to Victoria, Charing Cross and Cannon Street, and Great Northern from Hertfordshire to Moorgate. The announcement follows the national Labour Party revealing plans to roll out nationalisation of rail during first five years in power, if it won the next general election

Sadiq Khan unveils plan for ’metro-style’ London suburban train system

Mr Khan wants to bring suburban trains under TfL's control, if re-elected

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Khan is announcing pledges (again) including working with a Labour Government to bring London suburban rail services under TfL.

Specifically refers to misery of outer London Rail services !

Sadiq Khan unveils plan for ’metro-style’ London suburban train system

Mr Khan wants to bring suburban trains under TfL's control, if re-elected

uk.news.yahoo.com

That seems in principle a good idea. And I'm guessing on at least the Woolwich line, it should be possible in principle to increase frequencies, since as I understand it, the frequencies are currently so low due to having been cut back during Covid times rather than because of lack of capacity on the network. Not so sure about the other lines he mentions. Also not sure what he means by, better interchanges, or whether that implies any capital expenditure. My only doubt is whether TfL has the money to do what Sadiq is proposing. And also I won't be amused if TfL takes over the lines and then replaces the seating with crappy uncomfortable longitudinal seating, the way they tend to on other lines.

 

[infobleep]

Yes the issue is that they should never have been subsumed into "London" in the first place. There are huge swathes of the outer London boroughs similar to the one I illustrated. These are rural areas, many comprising open farmland. They have next to no TfL services, gain nothing from the GLA (apart from pensioners being given free travel on TfL transport they have no realistic access to) and their GLA "precept" is nothing short of them being milked as cash cows to finance the Mayor's largesse in Inner London.

There was one small area which escaped the land grab. This is the story of how the small village of Knockholt, despite being gobbled up by London in 1965, fought a successful campaign to be returned to Kent. The article makes a nice read, but even more informative, the photographs illustrate quite clearly the sort of areas the 1965 scheme considered suitable for inclusion in Greater London. There are still many areas like this spread around the edge of the GLA boundary.

The Village That Wriggled Free From London

Enough was enough.

londonist.com

I once tried to find out online why Hinchley Wood was in Surrey but Maldon Rushett, a village in Chessington was in Greater London. I wasn't successful.

It seemed odd as Hinchkey Wood merges into Surbtion but there is clear country before Maldon Rushett.

The boundaries are unlikely to change though and there are plenty of TfL services in outer London boroughs. They are commonly known as buses.

As for the elections, it will be interesting to see how many students try to show their Oyster 18+ photo ID. This will have more relevance in boroughs with universities.

If anyone shows incorrect ID, that has to be recorded so there are stats available afterwards. If they come back with correct ID, that also has to be noted. So as soon as this happens, one has to keep checking a list every time, in case the person comes back at any point with correct ID.

At these elections the votes will be counted manually, rather than electronically. On the Friday ballot papers will be verified and on the Saturday counted.

I wonder if the BBC will have an election programme on the Saturday, to cover the London Elections? They could perhaps opt out BBC London. After all BBC Wales, BBC Scotland and BBC Ulsta have opt outs from time to time. Unlikely of course.

There are also going to be three ballot boxes at the polling stations. One for each ballot paper type.

Candidates are still trying to win people over but a reasonable number may have already posted their postal ballot paper. I never hear that fact acknowledged on the radio or TV. Perhaps I've missed it.

 

[ChrisC]

I wonder if the BBC will have an election programme on the Saturday, to cover the London Elections? They could perhaps opt out BBC London. After all BBC Wales, BBC Scotland and BBC Ulsta have opt outs from time to time. Unlikely of course.

BBC1 East Midlands had a 45 minute opt out on Wednesday evening following the 10 o’clock News. This was concerning the elections for the new East Midlands Mayor. This election is for Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Of course he has, just like how in 2021 he said he had “no plans” to expand ULEZ to outer London…….

Wasn't ULEZ expansion mandated in a TFL funding package from Westminster?

 

[infobleep]

BBC1 East Midlands had a 45 minute opt out on Wednesday evening following the 10 o’clock News. This was concerning the elections for the new East Midlands Mayor. This election is for Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby and Derbyshire.

The BBC election coverage is in four parts, of which 1, 2 and 4 are on BBC One on Thursday night and Friday. Part 3 is on BBC Two.

I can find nothing on BBC One London for the Saturday when the results are actually announced. BBC Two covers England so that wouldn't be the appreciate place.

Perhaps the BBC consider their Saturday afternoon schedules to be more important than opting out for the London Elections.

 

[Enthusiast]

Wasn't ULEZ expansion mandated in a TFL funding package from Westminster?

No.

The conditions of the funding package encouraged the Mayor to bring forward the already planned extension from the initial Inner London area (the are covered by the congestion charge) to encompass the area out to the North and South Circular Roads:

Government funding agreement did not force Sadiq Khan to extend ULEZ to cover all of Greater London - Full Fact

A letter published in 2020 is circulating on social media as evidence that the proposed ULEZ expansion was ordered by the government.

fullfact.org

FOI request detail

FOI request detail

tfl.gov.uk

The decision to expand the zone out to the M25 was entirely that of Mayor Khan.












;

 

[Thirteen]

Some of the candidates' pledge to scrap not only ULEZ but also congestion charge is kind of insane.

 

[YorkRailFan]

No.

The conditions of the funding package encouraged the Mayor to bring forward the already planned extension from the initial Inner London area (the are covered by the congestion charge) to encompass the area out to the North and South Circular Roads:

Government funding agreement did not force Sadiq Khan to extend ULEZ to cover all of Greater London - Full Fact

A letter published in 2020 is circulating on social media as evidence that the proposed ULEZ expansion was ordered by the government.

fullfact.org

FOI request detail

FOI request detail

tfl.gov.uk

The decision to expand the zone out to the M25 was entirely that of Mayor Khan.












;

Section 12 h of the TFL financing package suggests something different, reading:

The immediate reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these changes, in accordance with the relevant legal powers and decision-making processes.

Available to download here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/investors/funding-letters
(Scroll down to the May 2020 PDF titled "Extraordinary funding and financing agreement")

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Some of the candidates' pledge to scrap not only ULEZ but also congestion charge is kind of insane.

Yes, there are some pretty insane pledges there. Incidentally, I received the booklet with all the Mayoral Candidates' statements today. As far as I can make out, no fewer than 6 candidates want to scrap the ULEZ expansion. Joining the Tories in that aim are Britain First, Reform, the SDP, and two independents. Britain First are the ones who want to abolish the Congestion Charge too. The Reform candidate Howard Cox amused me the most by claiming personal credit for the Tories' longstanding freeze in fuel duty, despite that he isn't even in the Tory party. 'Since 2011, every driver, business and charity has benefitted .. all because of my campaign against fuel duty increases'

 

[Thirteen]

Yes, there are some pretty insane pledges there. Incidentally, I received the booklet with all the Mayoral Candidates' statements today. As far as I can make out, no fewer than 6 candidates want to scrap the ULEZ expansion. Joining the Tories in that aim are Britain First, Reform, the SDP, and two independents. Britain First are the ones who want to abolish the Congestion Charge too. The Reform candidate Howard Cox amused me the most by claiming personal credit for the Tories' longstanding freeze in fuel duty, despite that he isn't even in the Tory party. 'Since 2011, every driver, business and charity has benefitted .. all because of my campaign against fuel duty increases'

Luckily Britain First are never going to succeed in London,

I get scrapping the ULEZ expansion but not ULEZ entirely, even Susan Hall has said she'd keep ULEZ in inner London.

The right wing press has been jumping on Sadiq Khan's lead shrinking but that always happens close to polling day.

Oddly The Standard who you'd think would support Susan Hall is encouraging people to vote for Khan.