Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Far north around here is Cromer.

Yup.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 3:19 pm So was a good chunk of Essex...

By that logic, Chelmsford's north and Carlisle's south.

The Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum:

First as to the boundaries between us. [They shall run] up the Thames, and then up[e] the Lea, and along the Lea to its source, then in a straight line to Bedford, and then up the Ouse to Watling Street.

The Older kingdon of the East Saxons

The Kingdom of Essex was bounded to the north by the River Stour and the Kingdom of East Anglia, to the south by the River Thames and Kent, to the east lay the North Sea and to the west Mercia

The Kingdom's Eastern Border varied with time.

Modern Essex follows the Northern and Southern bounds of the kingdom, while maintaining the Lea as its eastern boundary.

Like I said.

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:08 pm ... while maintaining the Lea as its eastern boundary.

Luton is now moored off Harwich? I'm sure I would have read something about that on Twitter.

Do we have an east-west issue? I don't think the eastern border changed much over time.*

*Coastal erosion excepted.

Being "geographically-challenged", that might be an issue. (Luton, with its majestic depository of shopping trolleys and old sofas, the River Lea, is way to the west of Essex.)

It's equally unpleasant, so I understand where the confusion might creep in.

It is now, it wasn't in 1000.

After all, not much has happened since.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:03 pm Do we have an east-west issue? I don't think the eastern border changed much over time.*

*Coastal erosion excepted.

my mistake, being equally inept with either hand I frequently confuse left and right - hence east and west.
I knew what I was trying to say.

<Tory Backbencher>
It's time the party opposite stopped talking down the beautiful and cultured county of Essex
</Tory Backbencher>

Twitter has to correct Andy who is in the populist stupid club again. With some right brain boxes

It seems to be catching:

Christ. Do those two really think that’s likely?

Sounds like a funny deal that’ll probably cost Turkey more than it needs to. But whatever it is, it’s non-neoliberal, pro-manufacturing, interventionist etc. Populist Andy and Steve ought to like this.

Used to qualify for export credit guarantees for selling military hardware to Ba’thist dictators. Sleazeball diarist Alan Clarke got into hot water over some disreputable deal with Saddam Hussein.
‘Who cares if one lot of foreigners is killing another lot of foreigners as long as they pay their bills,’ was Clarke’s ultra pragmatic approach.

Good luck to Andy with this. It's the right thing to do, but it'll need extra funding.

People often contrast London (no deregulation) with everywhere else and say "Look how much difference it makes!" I'm sure it does make some, and I certainly wouldn't want to deregulate London buses, but there are also big differences in population density, ease and cost of running cars etc. Deregulated buses are probably reasonably efficient in terms of identifying viable (if not profitable at least cheap enough that the council, even now, might subsidize them). If you're looking to serve places that haven't been well served, that'll probably cost you. Can Andy find that money?

I hope Andy can improve things, but expectations could be a bit high for the immediate future.

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:53 pm Used to qualify for export credit guarantees for selling military hardware to Ba’thist dictators. Sleazeball diarist Alan Clarke got into hot water over some disreputable deal with Saddam Hussein.
‘Who cares if one lot of foreigners is killing another lot of foreigners as long as they pay their bills,’ was Clarke’s ultra pragmatic approach.

Of course, a little nugget in the middle of the old ECG system is that the guarantees were paid out of the foreign aid budget. Because BAE Systems et al need the fucking money

Another article on Greater Manchester buses. Rather illustrates my worry about excessive expectations.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -transport

Plenty on Mrs Thatcher, notorious Manchester bus wars, London. But...

This is the only bit on money.

We are all propping up the private operators in this broken system. Public money makes up 40% of bus company revenue, but the public has no control over fares, nor the vast majority of routes and timetables. And 10% of that public money is paid as dividends to bus company shareholders, instead of being reinvested in better services

That means.

Public subsidy re-invested in buses- 36
Money taken by bus operators- 4
Money paid by passengers- 60

That margin does sound too high. We can redue that when we negotiate under the new system. Let's say 5% margin. as a working figure as the new system beds in. We're up to.

Money paid by passengers 60
Public subsidy reinvested in buses- 38
Money taken by bus operators- 2

Well worth doing- do any policy that makes savings like this. Depends what expectations are. If it's purely "better use of public money, good", then fine. If it's "we'll be like London!", then you might well feel disappointed.

Burnham will have to do a lot of hard work on funding and encouraging passengers.

This sums up a lot of my issues with Burnham the way he plays up the whole poor north being ripped off by those southern ponces.

Manchester already has a regular rail service to London and Liverpool an even better one. It’s east-West links in the north that are poor as they are in large parts of the south outside of London.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 12:56 pm This sums up a lot of my issues with Burnham the way he plays up the whole poor north being ripped off by those southern ponces.

He should try living in the Fens, with all its long-closed east/west rail links and sparse buses... we lost whole railway lines from the 50s onwards.

What does he think happens in Birmingham?