Tim Parker sacked, RMT accepts almost the same offer it rejected
before. Coincidence, I'm sure...

http://www.johnband.org/blog/2008/08...piracy-theory/

On Aug 20, 8:42 am, John B <s> wrote:
> Tim Parker sacked, RMT accepts almost the same offer it rejected
> before. Coincidence, I'm sure...
>
> [..]


So Tim Parker was there doing his job for TfL, and then the RMT hired
Bob Crow to bash TfL?

On Aug 20, 9:08 am, MIG <googles> wrote:
> > Tim Parker sacked, RMT accepts almost the same offer it rejected
> > before. Coincidence, I'm sure...
>
> >[..]
>
> So Tim Parker was there doing his job for TfL, and then the RMT hired
> Bob Crow to bash TfL?

Eh? I'm suggesting that the RMT might have agreed to call off the Tube
Lines strike despite no significant improvement in pay offer, on the
condition that Boris sacked Parker from TfL.

On Aug 20, 9:19 am, John B <s> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 9:08 am, MIG <googles> wrote:
>
> > > Tim Parker sacked, RMT accepts almost the same offer it rejected
> > > before. Coincidence, I'm sure...
>
> > >[..]
>
> > So Tim Parker was there doing his job for TfL, and then the RMT hired
> > Bob Crow to bash TfL?
>
> Eh? I'm suggesting that the RMT might have agreed to call off the Tube
> Lines strike despite no significant improvement in pay offer, on the
> condition that Boris sacked Parker from TfL.

I understood that, but the implication was that the initiative was
from the RMT, rather than Tim Parker being hired in a blaze of
publicity to bash the unions.

Maybe it was a slightly more complicated discussion on the lines of
BC: "This idea of publicly intending to bash us is making us nervous
and to mistrust every deal. This isn't helping London is it?" BJ:
"Good point; I'd like to reconsider my dismissive attitude and talk to
you directly instead of via my hit man."

MIG wrote:

>
> Maybe it was a slightly more complicated discussion on the lines of
> BC: "This idea of publicly intending to bash us is making us nervous
> and to mistrust every deal. This isn't helping London is it?" BJ:
> "Good point; I'd like to reconsider my dismissive attitude and talk to
> you directly instead of via my hit man."

The more prosaic explanation of Parker's departure is that he really
wanted to make radical cuts in GLA and TfL expenditure. This would have
horrified the elected politicians Milton and Johnson, who are quite
happy to have public expenditure as long as it goes into Tory areas,
preferably accompanied by a freeze or cut in the Mayor's precept (which
doesn't fund TfL). They could foresee the headlines in the suburban
freesheets - 'Boris Slashes X, Y and Z Shock Horror'. That explains the
whole 'TfL Chair Needs To Be Democratically Accountable'. Parker would
never have carried the can for the cuts, the public would look to blame
the high-profile elected figure of Boris.

Boris is quite right for once - TfL does need to be democratically
accountable at the top. It's a shame he's taken four months to realise
what Livingstone knew in 2000, that's all.

Tom

In article <FURqk.59924$LU4.38621>, illia
(Tom Barry) wrote:

> MIG wrote:
>> The more prosaic explanation of Parker's departure is that he
> really wanted to make radical cuts in GLA and TfL expenditure.
> This would have horrified the elected politicians Milton and
> Johnson, who are quite happy to have public expenditure as long as
> it goes into Tory areas, preferably accompanied by a freeze or cut
> in the Mayor's precept (which doesn't fund TfL). They could
> foresee the headlines in the suburban freesheets - 'Boris Slashes
> X, Y and Z Shock Horror'. That explains the whole 'TfL Chair Needs
> To Be Democratically Accountable'. Parker would never have carried
> the can for the cuts, the public would look to blame the
> high-profile elected figure of Boris.
>
> Boris is quite right for once - TfL does need to be democratically
> accountable at the top. It's a shame he's taken four months to
> realise what Livingstone knew in 2000, that's all.

Milton may have been elected in Westminster but he's not elected now at
the GLA, surely?