I thought it was just something in their water.

[smithy]

@KennyR

Labour has been in power for 8 years and the transport system has only gotten worse.  They've meddled excessively with the train network, creating quangos, abolishing the same quangos a few years later, creating authorities, giving excessive amounts of money to train companies for poor services.   They've also created the "motorway for the elite" - toll motorways alongside regular motorways.  A shameful 2-class system if I ever saw one.  And one the Tories never tried in 2 decades and opposed when they Labour built them this year.

5 million employed (by the state) in unnecessary and token jobs - the public sector was riddled with wastage and bad management.  The socialists had spent so much money in the 70s that the country was bankrupt by the time Thatcher came to power.  The IMF refused more money without reform, there was no money to pay people in these unnecessary jobs.  There was no choice but to sell off some of the nationalised industries.

Then there was the Union Effect.  The militant unions destroyed British industry with excessive strike action.  Ship building in the north east was wrecked - why order ships from Newcastle when it would be over-budget and late because of industrial action.  People took their business abroad.  Same for steel, coal...

Instead of blaming the Tories for rectifying the situation, why don't you blame the socialists for creating it in the first place?!  The Tories didn't create 5 million unnecessary jobs paid for by the taxpayer.  This kind of wastage just isn't acceptable.

And "just to keep inflation down"??  Sweet Jesus man!  Inflation KILLS economies.  And it was already at record levels before Thatcher re-introduced some sensible economic policy to the UK.  Inflation kills people's savings and it weakens the value of the currency.  In 1972, Sterling was worth $3.75!!!!!! (imagine that today!).  Even the incompetants who run the Eurozone have at last adopted the British economic model of low-inflation.

[smithy]

KennyR wrote:
OT: Just realised what that aristocratic leech Charlie Saxe-Coburg (a.k.a "His Majesty Prince of Wales") said. He said that "Britain's learning culture gave people hope beyond their capabilities".

That quote is out of context - he went on to say that the education system led people to believe they could succeed without work or talent.  That he believes everyone has a unique talent and people need to be helped to find it, and make the most of it.

The man is talking patent common sense.  Why make some spotty 15-year old who has a voice like Swiss cheese believe they can be a pop star.  You're just setting them up for disappointment.  Simon Cowell believes the same thing too.  Why produce false hopes in people without a natural ability for something?  Just tell them the truth.  Molly-cuddling our young people in schools doesn't prepare them for the real world, which certainly isn't like that.

But anyway.  I believe his comments are based on the lowering of GCSE and A Level standards.  Where everybody who sits one automatically gets one, where there are so many grade As and A*s that it's impossible to distinguish those who demonstrate excellence and those who are average.

This is bad for our country, and bad for the people we are going to be the future adults of this country.

You really don't believe in that elitist claptrap, do you smithy? Charlie doesn't have the right to tell ANYONE they're trying to get by without working, he lives totally off taxpayer's money and costs a lot more than any of us would!

It's not elitist, it's common sense.  Everybody has a natural talent, and they need to be encouraged to find it and develop it.  Convincing someone who can't catch a ball that they're going to be a world-class cricketer is clearly not helpful to anyone.

As Prince Charles says:

In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor

Contrast that to Labour's approach of encouraging more people to go to university instead of such "dirty jobs".

I know what sounds elitist to me.

[KennyR]

Smithy wrote:
And "just to keep inflation down"?? Sweet Jesus man! Inflation KILLS economies. And it was already at record levels before Thatcher re-introduced some sensible economic policy to the UK. Inflation kills people's savings and it weakens the value of the currency. In 1972, Sterling was worth $3.75!!!!!! (imagine that today!). Even the incompetants who run the Eurozone have at last adopted the British economic model of low-inflation.

It was the conservatives who created the inflation in the first place! By taking all of the regulations off the economy to pursue this idiotic free market model (which has been proven unworkable many times), it got people spending which increased inflation. Now, instead of raising interest rates like present Labour, she was unwilling to incovenience the investors (who she was busy selling Britain off to), so she decided just to make a whole lot of people unemployed. Millions, in fact. Almost a quarter of the working populace, in fact.

That she can never be forgiven for. Many areas still haven't recovered. The areas that had most jobs in these industries she shut down became ghost towns. Then they became drugs and crime havens.

I don't care that the socialist system of the 70s was untenable. It could have been streamlined, but instead the Tories tore out the heart of the country and sold it off to obscenely rich tossers. Making so many people jobless at once almost destroyed the country. The prolonged mass unemployment began Chavs, high crime, unemployment culture, drinking and drugs culture, urban degeneration, and most of the other negative things that plague Britain today.

[Dan]

smithy wrote:
The IMF refused more money without reform, there was no money to pay people in these unnecessary jobs.  There was no choice but to sell off some of the nationalised industries.

So Britain should just been over for the IMF?
I tought you where pretty nationalistic?

And "just to keep inflation down"??  Sweet Jesus man!  Inflation KILLS economies.  And it was already at record levels before Thatcher re-introduced some sensible economic policy to the UK.  Inflation kills people's savings and it weakens the value of the currency.  In 1972, Sterling was worth $3.75!!!!!! (imagine that today!).

There is a easy way to keep inflation away.
Shoot the usurers!
The whole economic sector is a rip-off, you complain about people " believe they could succeed without work or talent."
well those guy does, a couple of hundred years ago they would have gone for a churchcareer

Even the incompetants who run the Eurozone have at last adopted the British economic model of low-inflation.

That´s the american model :lol:

[the_leander]

The thing is that Both Kenny and Smithy are bang on in their pointing out how we have sunk so low, the socialists during the 70s killed buisness in this country, with 90% tax rates, all the strikes, power cuts and the three day working week.

And thatcher stomped on the now grosely bloated state owned operations, killing them, and whilst jobs did come back, and buisness build up, they did not come back quickly enough to stem the rate of flow from things such as mining and stealworking. leaving the North a wastland that has never recovered.

So, between the two systems this country was utterly boned... and then Blair came along and from what Ive seen is the worst parts of both these systems - high taxation, authorotarian, buisness unfriendly (I remember when New Labour came to power, and litterally within a week of them anouncing what they were going to be doing, the electrical industry at large packed up and moved overseas - at a cost of 1.3 million jobs I was doing one of those jobs and training to be an electrical engineer). And the torys (somewhat) misuguided attempt to get buisness into doing things that the public sector should do (Network rail comes to mind as a good example of why this is sooo wrong).

smithy wrote:
@KennyR

Labour has been in power for 8 years and the transport system has only gotten worse.  They've meddled excessively with the train network, creating quangos, abolishing the same quangos a few years later, creating authorities, giving excessive amounts of money to train companies for poor services.   They've also created the "motorway for the elite" - toll motorways alongside regular motorways.  A shameful 2-class system if I ever saw one.  And one the Tories never tried in 2 decades and opposed when they Labour built them this year.

5 million employed (by the state) in unnecessary and token jobs - the public sector was riddled with wastage and bad management.  The socialists had spent so much money in the 70s that the country was bankrupt by the time Thatcher came to power.  The IMF refused more money without reform, there was no money to pay people in these unnecessary jobs.  There was no choice but to sell off some of the nationalised industries.

Then there was the Union Effect.  The militant unions destroyed British industry with excessive strike action.  Ship building in the north east was wrecked - why order ships from Newcastle when it would be over-budget and late because of industrial action.  People took their business abroad.  Same for steel, coal...

Instead of blaming the Tories for rectifying the situation, why don't you blame the socialists for creating it in the first place?!  The Tories didn't create 5 million unnecessary jobs paid for by the taxpayer.  This kind of wastage just isn't acceptable.

And "just to keep inflation down"??  Sweet Jesus man!  Inflation KILLS economies.  And it was already at record levels before Thatcher re-introduced some sensible economic policy to the UK.  Inflation kills people's savings and it weakens the value of the currency.  In 1972, Sterling was worth $3.75!!!!!! (imagine that today!).  Even the incompetants who run the Eurozone have at last adopted the British economic model of low-inflation.

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.

[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 wrote:

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.

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.

[/quote]

As someone who has travelled about 300 miles each week on the West Coast Main Line since 1994, I can honestly say that the level of service has got worse and worse.

Yes, it was bad when British Rail ran it, but not as bad as now.

It used to take one train 1hr 45mins to get from preston to birmingham with british rail.  It now takes 2hrs 30mins at least (usually more, epecially on sunday) and sometimes you have to change 3 times.  It costs nearly £40 and you are lucky if you can get a seat,  many a time I have to sit on the floor in the doorway.  They still expect full ticket price from you though.  The food and drink is terrible and costs a fortune.

Why should we as tax payers prop up privately owned companies that offer a terrible service, and pay for tickets too?

Anyone?

mdma wrote:

PMC wrote:

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.

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.

As someone who has travelled about 300 miles each week on the West Coast Main Line since 1994, I can honestly say that the level of service has got worse and worse.

Yes, it was bad when British Rail ran it, but not as bad as now.

It used to take one train 1hr 45mins to get from preston to birmingham with british rail.  It now takes 2hrs 30mins at least (usually more, epecially on sunday) and sometimes you have to change 3 times.  It costs nearly £40 and you are lucky if you can get a seat,  many a time I have to sit on the floor in the doorway.  They still expect full ticket price from you though.  The food and drink is terrible and costs a fortune.

Why should we as tax payers prop up privately owned companies that offer a terrible service, and pay for tickets too?

Anyone?[/quote]

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?

[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.  

[Speelgoedmannetje]

You British should punish those railway companies instead of rewarding them!
btw. commercializing infrastructure is disastrous for areas where there's a low, or even less high, population density.

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
You British should punish those railway companies instead of rewarding them!
btw. commercializing infrastructure is disastrous for areas where there's a low, or even less high, population density.

Well, instead of punishing them for runninga bad service, the government gives them millions of pounds a year for free.

Can't fathom it out myself.