I thought it was just something in their water.

[PMC]

Well going back to Fade's original point about Britain having a high alcohol dependancy it does seem like we have a booze culture here.  What are the causes IMHO?

1) Ludicrous opening hours that encourage binge drinking before 11PM

2) Lack of social pursuits outside of public houses

3) Reliance on speed cameras instead of traffic police stopping suspected drunk motorists.

As for Fade's insinuation that the US's closest ally is a nation of haphazard drunkards, I think the aforementioned references to George W "I used to drink bourbon but now I love God more" Bush and the fact that despite our innebriation, our armed forces seem somewhat reluctant to deliver munitions off target say it all.

It's a provocative thread, but no more so than several of the anti-Bush / US foreign policy threads seen here recently so I won't take the bait.

Anyway, to my original points:

The licensing laws in this country were brought in during WW1 to ensure munitions workers turned up on time for work and allowed time for judgement impairing effects of alcohol to be reduced before starting work assembling shells.  This archaic law stuck all the way to the present day, and I can testify that at 10:30 you start to drink faster in order to get another beer in before last orders, which some people take to excess.  Thankfully, these ridiculous laws are being changed and not a minute too soon.

Also, compared with some of our European neighbours we lack a great many outdoor pursuits / sporting facilities.  The whole social ethos of the young revolves around bars and nightclubs.  It's not cool to be seen hanging around the local rotary club.

Lastly, despite hugely successful campaigns in the 70's and 80's drink driving is on the rise.  The advent of the Gatso has meant less traffic police, so you can be pissed, tripping your head off and be carrying a car load of semtex but will more than likely drive wherever you like unmolested unless you exceed the speed limit.  

[PMC]

mdma wrote:

I really can't understand why the government gives money to the privatised train companies.

If they can't afford run the trains , then the companies should should put the prices up.  After a short period, no one will use the trains anymore and the companies will go bankrupt.  Proving that the Tories were comlpletely wrong to privatise them in the first place.

Re-nationalisation is the only way to sort the mess out.  Look at France, best train system in Europe. 100% owned by the taxpayer.[/quote]


Considering the British gift of making a bankrupt beauracracy out of a nationalised industry, I'd be very wary about re-nationalising our rail service.  Ever since the 1960's, our rail network has been neglected and hasn't received adequate funding so now we've got to pay for 40 years of neglect.  

During the bad old days of the 70's, our nationalised corporations ran at a loss, were overstaffed and inefficient.  From the railways, to water and power they didn't start improving their service significantly until privatisation in the 80s.  However, privatisation isn't necessarily the full story as the French, Japanese and Dutch all seem to have a great rail network despite being government owned.  Dutch railways are cheap, clean and prompt by comparison to what we have here.  

If nationalisation is the way forward then there must be a system in place to ensure we don't fall back into old habits.

[PMC]

mdma wrote:

Smithy, you are a Tory what do you reckon to the practice of giving millions of tax payers hard earned wages for free to privately owned comapnies?

I'd rather give my money to a properly regulated private company in exchange for a good service than giving it to the government (again).

The problems with our railways are exacerbated by forty years of chronic under-investment.  Ever since the early 60's the road network has been seen as the future and branch lines have been closed down.  We've now got to make good that forty years and catch up with the rest of the rail using world in terms of passenger comfort and speed.

Before WW2, we had four rail companies that each were charged with maintaining the services in four regions.  Back then, the "Big Four" managed to maintain track and rolling stock, provide adequate coverage of rural branch lines and provide a decent service.  Occasionally, the services would compete (re LMS and LNER's London - Edinburgh runs) but for the most part everyone was happy.  

Upon nationalisation, the rail industry became state owned and received inadequate government funding, as a result the axe was weilded and services and maintenance was cut.  I don't doubt that our railways are in an apalling state today, and that services have grown appreciably worse over the past twenty years, but given the history of nationalised industry in Britain, I certainly wouldn't trust a government department full of beaurocratic civil servants to run a bath, let alone a national rail network.