Why do so many people take ANY excuse to have a go at railway staff and Bob?

[Talbot]

Rail is an essential public service that will exist for many years as a tried and tested technology, and is indeed a booming industry. Coal mining became unimportant as our reserves ran out and it became replaced with other forms of energy, some of which were imported. Shipbuilding was never an essential public service. The British car industry was never an essential public service either.

Claims that these industries are on a par with the rail industry are entirely fallacious, particularly with reference to unionisation "destroying" those industries.

Oh, it became unimportant did it ?, not to those of us who risked our lives on a daily basis to work in the bowels of the earth, and where do you get your information on our natural reserves running out ?. There were, and still are vast amounts of proven coal faces in Scotland alone, more than enough to have provided decades of production. And while i'm on my rant, maybe you should have come out on strike with us at the time when we pleaded backing from rail workers and steelmen to overthrow the bitch, but, no, we were left alone and the rest is history, trade unionism died that day.

 

[313103]

Well said Metro. I particularly agree with your point about those of us who do not work in the industry but who are frequent users of, and enjoy using, trains.

I would hate to see our railway facing service cuts and line closures and reduced investment because unions think they can use their undoubted power to stick two fingers up to the rest of us. That can only end badly, not least for rail workers.

So in reality then Captain the unions do nothing (something that you seem to support) and the workers lose out, the unions do something and the workers lose out! So they are in a no win postion then?

So all in all it WILL only end badly, with the rail workers bearing the brunt.

 

[CosherB]

That's a very black and white view 31. Life, in my experience, is a complex mix of greys (and bright colours as well of course!). The unions (and this is only my opinion) need to be pragmatic - ensure their members get a fair deal, but not kill the goose that is laying the golden egg.

 

[Legzr1]

So in reality then Captain the unions do nothing (something that you seem to support) and the workers lose out, the unions do something and the workers lose out! So they are in a no win postion then?

So all in all it WILL only end badly, with the rail workers bearing the brunt.

Mate,don't waste your time.


This Cpt isn't for turning...

 

[RichmondCommu]

And while i'm on my rant, maybe you should have come out on strike with us at the time when we pleaded backing from rail workers and steelmen to overthrow the bitch, but, no, we were left alone and the rest is history, trade unionism died that day.

What, and thats a bad thing? Coal in this country has become too expensive to mine so it makes sense to import cheaper stuff.

If you hadn't go on strike some of the jobs might have been preserved for a bit longer, Oh well you learned, sadly the hard way.

 

[Pumbaa]

. There were, and still are vast amounts of proven coal faces in Scotland alone, more than enough to have provided decades of production. .

And it's completely uneconomical to get it. Besides, before cheap imported coal starts to decline and mining in the UK looks attractive again (even more so than now) shale gas will come online which will kill the idea stone dead.

 

[Old Timer]

.....Thatch was far from correct in all she did (for one thing, she didn't like railways and wouldn't invest in public infrastructure) ....

In an otherwise well argued post I really do have to disagree with you on this point.

It is incorrect to say that Mrs Thatcher did not like the Railways and did not invest in them. The FIRST ever station re-openings took place under her Government, as well as several electrfication schemes, new rolling stock orders, new resignalling schemes - remember Clapham was due to a resignalling scheme, and Southall took place on the section over which the Heathrow Express link was being constructed.

You may wish to contrast the actions of previous Labour Governments in the time leading up to the 1979 Election - particularly the points where they LIED about there true intents, something they are extremelly good at and practiced again to a fine art when the returned to power.

Starting off with the Beeching Report

The Conservative Government had authorised the closure of 600 miles of track following acceptance of the Beeching Report.

On 15th October 1964, a Labour Government was elected and remained in power until 18th June 1970.

On 24th May 1966, Barbara Castle announced that the Labour Government would be closing 3,000 miles of track.

The 1968 Transport Act which was to be so disastrous for the future of the nationalised railway system was developed and implemented by Barbara Castle as Transport Minister.

The most savage cuts in the Railway network were undertaken under a Labour Government NOT by a Conservative Government. The Rose-Tinted spectacle brigade will not like this of course because it pulls the rug out from under their Political argument, but then of course they never have let the facts spoil a good lie.

Turning now to the 1970's.

The Conservative Government took power in June 1970.

When the railway union leaders met Richard Marsh (Chairman of the BRB) on 18th June 1973 they were told that the Minister for Transport had asked the Board to undertake a further review, as financial trends showed that the railways had little prospect of meeting their statutory requirements.

The Board eventually presented two options to the Minister for Transport, John Peyton - a cutback of the railway system by 1,000 miles, or maintenance of the system at the present rate, by doubling its subsidy to £170 million a year. The Conservative Government concluded that the existing network should be retained, but 40,000 posts should be lost over a 9 year period and that a reduction in marshalling yards, parcels depots and locomotives was required.

John Peyton met railway Trade Union leaders three times in November 1973 and confirmed that according to the BRB's studies there was no prospect that the railway industry, based on its existing size, could make a profit in the foreseeable future.

He told the Unions, in confidence, that the Government was to provide the BRB with £891 million for a five year investment programme. Of this, £531 million would be allocated to the commercial railway, £300 million to the commuter network, £41 million for the Channel Tunnel and £19 million would go towards the Advanced Passenger Train.

The British Railways Board was satisfied that it would be just sufficient to retain the network at its present size.

The Minister announced the details of BR's investment programme to the House of Commons on 28th November 1973 and added that unremunerative passenger services would be kept open, as long as they were justified on social and environmental grounds.

In 1974 a Labour Government was elected to power.

The Government introduced the Railway Act (1974), which provided a general subsidy to passenger services, grants for the provision of new private sidings and freight facilities, and Government support for railway workers' pensions.

The Channel Tunnel project was cancelled.

On 21st February 1975, after a vigorous campaign to retain the Sealink Heysham-Belfast service, Fred Mulley announced that he would not be seeking statutory powers to ensure its survival, and the service was discontinued on 6th April.

This was followed by a leak to the press that a study by the Department of the Environment was giving consideration to converting railway lines into express bus lanes.

The Chancellor, in his 1975 budget, decided to slash £100 million from the nationalised industries' investment programme for the next financial year, and in August the BRB was told that their investment programme would be reduced by £25 million - 25 per cent of the total cuts.

On 30th October 1975 both the BRB and the railway Trade Unions approached the Minister for Transport, Dr. John Gilbert. Both management and unions emphasised the importance of clear Government policies, with adequate investment to ensure that the BRB could fulfil its role. Dr. Gilbert defended the Government's actions and said that the fears expressed by both the BRB and the trade unions were not totally justified.

On the 16th December 1975 Anthony Crosland told the House of Commons that rumours of a massive cut in the rail network were "a load of codswallop"

On 22nd December 1975, Anthony Crosland announced that railway investment up to 1981 would be restricted to the 1975 figure of £238 million for each year, based on average 1975 price levels. This was in effect a cutback in support bearing in mind the inflation rate at the time.

The railway Trade Unions estimated that there was a real possibility of the railway network being cut to 4,000 miles, with jobs falling to 95,000 by 1981.

The BRB when asked believed it would become a reality by 1985

On 13th April 1976 a Green Paper - "Transport Policy: A Consultation Document" was issued by the Government. Neither the railway Trade Unions nor the BRB were consulted during its preparation.

The main thrust of the Green Paper was to cut subsidies and investment and to eliminate some passenger and freight traffic. It ignored many Labour Party policies and paid lip service to others.

The Green Paper also indicated that 6 per cent of the railway's business was carried on lines that were little used and running at a loss. These lines would be closed, with buses introduced as the alternative.

The full extent of the Government's closure programme only became clear following a Parliamentary question by an NUR sponsored MP, Gordon Bagier, on 24th May 1976.

He was told that the 6 per cent of the mileage referred to actually covered 199 services, which shared approximately 45 per cent of the railway route network with other lines. This meant that Wales, with the exception of the main lines to Swansea and Holyhead, and Scotland, north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, would be dependent on buses and private cars. Cornwall would face similar problems and there would be drastic reductions in East Anglia, the Midlands, the North East and North West of England. In all it was believed that 2,452 miles of lines in England, 1,117 in Scotland and 641 in Wales would be affected.

In June 1977 the Government issued a White Paper which set the BRB two objectives - to contain and then reduce the subsidy to the revenue account for the operation of passenger services, and to eliminate any support to the other railway businesses beyond 1977.

On 27th March 1979, BR announced that it was considering closing 700 miles of track and replacing it with buses, as it could not continue to run loss-making services within the cash limits set by Whitehall.

On 3rd May 1979 the Labour Government was voted out of power.

 

[Railsigns]

It is incorrect to say that Mrs Thatcher did not like the Railways

"I had considerable doubt about the transport policy of the Conservative Government under my former right hon. Friend Margaret Thatcher. She was perceived, rightly, in many quarters as being hostile to the railways."

- Those words were spoken in Parliament by a Conservative MP.

 

[Metroland]

Thatcher was probably more hostile to the unions than the railways themselves, though it must be remembered that during the 70s and 80s most politicians thought railways were a sunset industry, and not really that interested in improving them. In these days of growing passenger numbers, environmental concerns and road congestion, they are taken more seriously.

During the last Labour government, I would say it was only in the last couple of years they got interested, mainly under Andrew Adonis. Although nothing is certain, the current government seem more interested in improving them (overall) in the interest of business and competitiveness.

It is a myth left wing concerns are more sympathetic, and indeed, Labour have done little to take on the power on the Unions that have in some cases saddled the industry with inflexibility, cost, and lost traffic through strikes and working practices.

It is telling that even 'Lefties' that read the Guardian have little to no sympathy that LUL propose to replace all train drivers with computer controlled trains. [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/01/london-underground-strategy-disaster ] .

The behaviour of the RMT over many years is the most persuasive case for the introduction of driverless trains. There can hardly be a single Londoner who would not cheer the disappearance of this blackmailing union.

If there was any place where you may have received a sympathetic hearing, it is The Guardian. But no, even here, there seems little support.

Quite right too. In the 21st century , to suggest that it is beyond the whit of man to offer a driverless transit system that is safe is simply ludicrous.

A significant percentage of Londoners feel little but contempt toward you and the RMT.

After 2012 and the Olympics, someone somewhere should take the RMT on. I hope you are crushed.

Your bullying and unreasonable demands have done a massive disservice to the trade union movement, succeeding in only reinforcing a negative stereotype of the unions that is most regrettable.

That is a complete and utter PR disaster on that part of the RMT and ASLEF, and the union membership ought be very concerned that the aggressive and confrontational style has just resulted in short term pay gains at the expense of public and management support. Passengers who are now presented with the option see automation as the way to go to stop people taking the **** out of them and their investments, fares and taxes.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Reading a completly non-rail related forum (hotUKdeals if anyone knows it?) I came accross this thread.. it made my blood boil!!

I am so sick of people telling us that driving trains is so easy, and we don't do anything hardly and don't deserve even half of our salary !!

This particular thread started as someone letting others know they can claim for a refund if there journey is delayed... it didn't take long until it turned into a hate campaign against 1) Bob 2) Drivers, and 3) people who commit suicide!

If you are a member of that site, please go on and post support the railway staff !

Link : http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/full-refund-tfl-vouchers-delayed-more-than-15-minutes-london-underground-1063655?page=2

I Think when people's trains are disrupted for any reason they just flip sometimes and have a good at the nearest person in uniform or seemingly from the company even if that person has nothing to do with the problem. One is just the nearest whipping boy. Where I work, in a shop, some of the customers think we are their servants and treat and speak to us really badly, while others are really nice. We just respond to any comments to our faces with a smile and thank you and walk away from any trouble, then go to the pub afterwards....I often feel very sorry for rail staff when they are getting abused for doing their job, especially when the abuser is in the wrong them selves, like not having a ticket etc etc. You/we are better than the idiots concerned.

 

[Schnellzug]

It is incorrect to say that Mrs Thatcher did not like the Railways and did not invest in them. .

Margaret "Great Car Economy" Thatcher?
Does anyone remember the Serpell Report (aka 'Beeching? You ain't seen nothing yet'), which was commissioned early on in Mrs. T's time on the throne? No, not even the Tories were mad enough to take it up, but the priority was, as it usually seems to be under Conservatory governments, to reduce spending on anything public as much as possible. I think that was probably it; it wasn't that mrs. T or the Tories were anti-rail as such, more that they were anti anything public, and it was all about individualism ("there is no such thing as Society") and "Freedom", for which read everyone look after number 1, don't expect the Government to do anything for you, hence their promotion of the "freedom" of the Car (from which, of course, the Government could make lots and lots of money through Taxes). It was a philosophical position, if that isn't dignifying it a bit too much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And it's completely uneconomical to get it. Besides, before cheap imported coal starts to decline and mining in the UK looks attractive again (even more so than now) shale gas will come online which will kill the idea stone dead.

I love all these confident expectations of the latest Wonder fuel that will satisfy all our energy needs, at some hypothetical point in the future. It has rather a nostalgic ring of the 1950s.

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Does anyone remember the Serpell Report (aka 'Beeching? You ain't seen nothing yet'), which was commissioned early on in Mrs. T's time on the throne? No, not even the Tories were mad enough to take it up, but the priority was, as it usually seems to be under Conservatory governments, to reduce spending on anything public..

Actually, in general, public infrastructure since 1950 or so has fared better under the Conservatives than Labour, both in terms of directed investment and avoiding cuts. Most of Beeching, after all, was implemented by Castle (despite election promises to the contrary). This is true not only of railways, but all aspects of the infrastructure, NHS, schools etc. The main difference between the parties has been that Conservatives invest in assets, whereas Labour money goes much more into pay. Generalisation, perhaps, but fairly accurate.

 

[Old Timer]

.............and it was all about individualism ("there is no such thing as Society") and "Freedom", for which read everyone look after number 1, don't expect the Government to do anything for you, hence their promotion of the "freedom" of the Car (from which, of course, the Government could make lots and lots of money through Taxes). It was a philosophical position, if that isn't dignifying it a bit too much.....

If you do choose to quote, then please qoute the full comment and NOT a selective part of it that you have quoted out of context.

Quoting out of context does nothing to support your argument.

What she ACTUALLY said was :-

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 3] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.

 

[Schnellzug]

oh dear, ive taken mrs. t out of context. Well, i do apologise to the mad old bat.

 

[Old Timer]

"I had considerable doubt about the transport policy of the Conservative Government under my former right hon. Friend Margaret Thatcher. She was perceived, rightly, in many quarters as being hostile to the railways."

- Those words were spoken in Parliament by a Conservative MP.

Your solitary point being what exactly ?

That Mrs Thatcher was SO anti-railway that we had no new build locomotives, DMUs. EMUs, new stations, new electrififcation or signalling schemes. :roll: :roll: :roll:

You really do talk a load of twaddle.

There will always be MPs who fundamentally disagree with a PM when they have lost or are on the losing side - you only have to cast around to the currewntl Labour Opposition to see how many previously close allies and conspiritors have suddenly seen the need to tell us how much against Bliar and Brown they were.

 

[SS4]

Thatcher was probably more hostile to the unions than the railways themselves, though it must be remembered that during the 70s and 80s most politicians thought railways were a sunset industry, and not really that interested in improving them. In these days of growing passenger numbers, environmental concerns and road congestion, they are taken more seriously.

During the last Labour government, I would say it was only in the last couple of years they got interested, mainly under Andrew Adonis. Although nothing is certain, the current government seem more interested in improving them (overall) in the interest of business and competitiveness.

It is a myth left wing concerns are more sympathetic, and indeed, Labour have done little to take on the power on the Unions that have in some cases saddled the industry with inflexibility, cost, and lost traffic through strikes and working practices.

It is worth telling that Labour haven't been anywhere near the left since Blair

Actually, in general, public infrastructure since 1950 or so has fared better under the Conservatives than Labour, both in terms of directed investment and avoiding cuts. Most of Beeching, after all, was implemented by Castle (despite election promises to the contrary). This is true not only of railways, but all aspects of the infrastructure, NHS, schools etc. The main difference between the parties has been that Conservatives invest in assets, whereas Labour money goes much more into pay. Generalisation, perhaps, but fairly accurate.

Except for the small matter of privatisation. Naturally, it's impossible to tell whether or not we, especially the poor (bottom 10%), are better off now than we would have been under nationalised utilities but I have a hunch the answer is no with maybe the exception of the telephone (and later internet)

It's almost criminal that in this age of austerity and energy reduction those with pre-payment meters are charged more/excluded from deals and that you pay proportionally more for the first units than the latter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There will always be MPs who fundamentally disagree with a PM when they have lost or are on the losing side - you only have to cast around to the currewntl Labour Opposition to see how many previously close allies and conspiritors have suddenly seen the need to tell us how much against Bliar and Brown they were.

Could you tell me who Bliar is please? I'm too young and naive to know :cry:

The Opposition have always promised the Earth and delivered very little. The Conservative party said they'd get the private sector to cover the gap from public sector layoffs and yet we've seen rising unemployment. They also changed the law regarding pensions almost immediately after coming into office despite a High Court ruling in favour of PCS in the last days of the previous government.

 

[Old Timer]

It is worth telling that Labour haven't been anywhere near the left since Blair



Except for the small matter of privatisation. Naturally, it's impossible to tell whether or not we, especially the poor (bottom 10%), are better off now than we would have been under nationalised utilities but I have a hunch the answer is no with maybe the exception of the telephone (and later internet)

It's almost criminal that in this age of austerity and energy reduction those with pre-payment meters are charged more/excluded from deals and that you pay proportionally more for the first units than the latter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Could you tell me who Bliar is please? I'm too young and naive to know :cry:

The Opposition have always promised the Earth and delivered very little. The Conservative party said they'd get the private sector to cover the gap from public sector layoffs and yet we've seen rising unemployment. They also changed the law regarding pensions almost immediately after coming into office despite a High Court ruling in favour of PCS in the last days of the previous government.

So this is an attack on pensions is it ?

The Government has announced plans to delay the date that the state pension age rises to 66 from April 2020 to October 2020.

The move will benefit a quarter of a million women and ensure that no-one will have to wait more than 18 months longer than they would have expected prior to the changes.

It will follow the equalisation of the state pension age between men and women, at 65, in November 2018.

The Government has brought forward the increase in state pension age to 66 because of dramatic increases in life expectancy and the need to ensure that no unfair burden is placed on the next generation. When the State Pension Age was set at 65 for men in1926, there were nine people of working age for every pensioner. There are now three people of working age for every pensioner and that is set to fall to nearer two by the end of this century.

Harriett Baldwin, MP for West Worcestershire and member of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, welcomed the decision to cap the increase at a maximum of 18 months.

She said: 'This is great news for the 245,000 women around the country who will benefit from this change. It shows that the government has listened to the concerns of those who would have been worst affected by the increase in the state pension age. This means that nobody will have to wait more than 18 months longer to receive their state pension.'

The Government will also spend £45 billion extra on pensioners by 2025 because of the triple guarantee to uprate the basic State Pension by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent.

or this ?

Pensions and Older People

The Government believes that people deserve dignity and respect in old age, and that they should be provided with the support they need. That means safeguarding key benefits and pensions, and taking action to make it easier for older people to work or volunteer.
We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011, with a 'triple guarantee' that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent.
We will commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long-term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.
We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66.
We will explore the potential to give people greater flexibility in accessing part of their personal pension fund early.
We will protect key benefits for older people.

I do not normally quote from a paper notorious for its errors and its leftist hypocricy (using tax havens whilst denouncing others for doing so / disingenuously claiming it is run by a non-profitmaking trust when it is not) however this may enlighten you.

Guardian Article

If you think that these proposals were not on Labour's agenda then you are woefully ill-informed. The current Pensions situation has much of its roots in the tax raid Brown and Blair (does that help ? Had you been a little more aware, you would have known that Blair was known as Tony B Liar or Bliar - I hope that explanation helps ?)

In the 1980s it was recognised that changing societal trends would bring about a pensions crisis about now. The then Conservative Government tried to form an All Party committee to look into the prevention of ther crisis and the actions necessary to reform pensions so as to stave off this crisis. This Committe was to have been free of any Political bias so that there could be an agreed way forward for the longer term.

Labour ALONE refused to join this and chose instead to sit back and criticise and denounce any changes made to pensions provision, and of course when it came to power it caused the closure of pretty much every defined benefits scheme, except of course those for themselves and those in the public sector. A little (just a little) checking of the facts would have elicited the fact that there is NO way that the public sector employers can afford to meet the pension payments going forward so the question is where fdoes the money come from ?

I am sure you will have a long period to regret Labour's actions when YOU will be paying substantially more to pay for the ring-fenced pensions of those in the public sector whilst your own pension will be costing you considerably more and will be worth less.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

The Joys of Politics! personally I am a Labour Supporter however all Political Parties are as bad as each other (maybe its just the nature of politicians) and I will always hate Maggie with a Vengeance

 

[Schnellzug]

Your solitary point being what exactly ?

That Mrs Thatcher was SO anti-railway that we had no new build locomotives, DMUs. EMUs, new stations, new electrififcation or signalling schemes. :roll: :roll: :roll:

You really do talk a load of twaddle.

There will always be MPs who fundamentally disagree with a PM when they have lost or are on the losing side - you only have to cast around to the currewntl Labour Opposition to see how many previously close allies and conspiritors have suddenly seen the need to tell us how much against Bliar and Brown they were.

What the Lady's Government did was graciously permit BR to spend some of its own money on the above-mentioned projects, rather than the Treasury taking it all; they weren't paid for out of the bottomless largesse of the Treasury. And that was why the ECML electrification was done on the Cheap, not to mention that it meant that rolling stock decidedly had to be designed down to a budget; see, to cite just two examples, Class 142 and the dreadful 321s.

 

[CosherB]

I will always hate Maggie with a Vengeance

You and nearly all Guardian readers, it seems. I've never understood this and think it's quite unjustified. Even if you disagree with Tory politics there's no denying Maggie turned UK around from a basket case to becoming a top European country.

There's a myth that she closed down most of British manufactering industry but as I pointed out in an earlier post, that industry had just about died anyway by then in the face of competition from the far east (and cheap imported coal in the case of coal mining) so it would have gone even if Callaghan was still PM (I was going to say 'still in control' but that would be an oxymoron!).

She has an unfortunate grating voice and condescending manner I'll agree, but in view of her successes for UK plc is that reason enough for the leftie knee-jerk 'Maggie is a witch' attitudes?

 

[Schnellzug]

Even if the Unions did contribute, and even if she didn't destroy it out of sheer vindictiveness, I'm very much afraid that allowing manufacturing industry- and with it other industries such as the merchant navy -to decline to the point of extinction was an act of sheer, criminal negligence, at the very least, and even if it was just for that she deserves to be tried at the High Court of history for sheer stupidity.
And what are these successes for UK plc? What is UK plc? The "Financial Industry"? I think we can see now how successful that's turned out to be. or perhaps arms deals with dodgy middle eastern countries?

 

[CosherB]

Even if the Unions did contribute, and even if she didn't destroy it out of sheer vindictiveness, I'm very much afraid that allowing manufacturing industry- and with it other industries such as the merchant navy -to decline to the point of extinction was an act of sheer, criminal negligence, at the very least, and even if it was just for that she deserves to be tried at the High Court of history for sheer stupidity.

Errr, my point was that she didn't. Those industries were dead anyway by then as far eastern competition was undercutting them. You seem to think that the PM defines whether an industry is successful or not, but of course the success or not of any industry is mostly in its own hands. If it is innovative, efficient, flexible and open to change, and invests in its own future it will probably be a success. The PM has nowt to do with any of that.

The UK Merchant Navy declined because lower cost operators using flags of covenience and massive container ships came in and undercut those UK operators that didn't do likewise (register with flags of convenience to cut costs, and to operate large container ships instead of general cargo vessels). In what way was Thatcher responsible for that?

 

[exile]

It's undeniable that under all recent governments the decline in UK manufacturing has been steeper than in comparable countries such as Germany. The assumption has been that we can become a powerhouse in the finance industry instead - that worked well didn't it?

 

[ainsworth74]

It's undeniable that under all recent governments the decline in UK manufacturing has been steeper than in comparable countries such as Germany.

And yet the manufacturing sector of the economy is more valuable that it was during the 1950s, granted it's share of the employment pie and the proportion it makes up of our GDP is smaller but certainly manufacturing isn't dead, we just don't employ 100,000 people making 50m tonnes of steel. Instead we employ 1,000 people making 1m tonnes of high quality, high value steel (numbers are pulled out of the air for comparisons sake).

This report makes for quite interesting reading.

 

[Schnellzug]

Errr, my point was that she didn't. Those industries were dead anyway by then as far eastern competition was undercutting them. You seem to think that the PM defines whether an industry is successful or not, but of course the success or not of any industry is mostly in its own hands. If it is innovative, efficient, flexible and open to change, and invests in its own future it will probably be a success. The PM has nowt to do with any of that.

The UK Merchant Navy declined because lower cost operators using flags of covenience and massive container ships came in and undercut those UK operators that didn't do likewise (register with flags of convenience to cut costs, and to operate large container ships instead of general cargo vessels). In what way was Thatcher responsible for that?

So Is all that acceptable because that's the way the Global Economy (TM) is? Sorry, but all of those things- losing the skills of self-sufficiency in everything from power generation to the means of transporting the stuff we need to import to generate that power- and becoming reliant on dodgy third world countries or middle eastern theocracies - is negligence on a grand scale, and if Mrs. T wasn't the only leader of the Civilised World that is to blame, neither she nor any of her contemporaries deserve any respect for allowing it to happen. No, I'm not blaming Mrs. t entirely, I suppose the entire Free World are all equally culpable, and now I think we are beginning to see the pigeons coming home to roost.

 

[exile]

And yet the manufacturing sector of the economy is more valuable that it was during the 1950s, granted it's share of the employment pie and the proportion it makes up of our GDP is smaller but certainly manufacturing isn't dead, we just don't employ 100,000 people making 50m tonnes of steel. Instead we employ 1,000 people making 1m tonnes of high quality, high value steel (numbers are pulled out of the air for comparisons sake).

This report makes for quite interesting reading.

OK - not much consolation to the other 99,000.

I'm not actually a luddite - I recognise that industries will change over time. However try suggesting here that railways could be run with less staff and watch the reaction - oddly enough, most of us prefer to hang on to our jobs even if that means our industry isn't as efficient as it could be.

 

[Railsigns]

Your solitary point being what exactly ?

I would have thought that was obvious. The quote I gave contradicts your assertion that Thatcher possessed a deep love of railways, thereby calling the rest of your pro-Tory 'facts' into question.

That Mrs Thatcher was SO anti-railway that we had no new build locomotives, DMUs. EMUs, new stations, new electrififcation or signalling schemes. :roll: :roll: :roll:

None of those things ever happened while Labour was in government?

You really do talk a load of twaddle.

Until now, my sole contribution to this thread was to quote someone who was in a better position than you to pass judgement on Thatcher, without adding any comment of my own; on what grounds do you say I was talking "twaddle"? Do you dispute the quote or are you just being gratuitously rude?

There will always be MPs who fundamentally disagree with a PM when they have lost or are on the losing side - you only have to cast around to the currewntl Labour Opposition to see how many previously close allies and conspiritors have suddenly seen the need to tell us how much against Bliar and Brown they were.

"Bliar"? Tony Blair's surname contains all the letters in the word "liar", therefore he is a liar? I can't possibly argue with sound reasoning like that. Well done, you!

 

[Yew]

Errr, my point was that she didn't. Those industries were dead anyway by then as far eastern competition was undercutting them. You seem to think that the PM defines whether an industry is successful or not, but of course the success or not of any industry is mostly in its own hands. If it is innovative, efficient, flexible and open to change, and invests in its own future it will probably be a success. The PM has nowt to do with any of that.

Of course, if Maggie had put funding into manufacturing, then the Implementation of new CNC machining techniques, and increased automation could have equaled out chinese labor costs.

 

[Hydro]

Train maintenance staff, conductors and ticket office staff are doing OK though, when you factor in the benefits like free travel

The only maintenance staff with free
travel are those who joined before 97. Everyone post-97, or not ex-BR, do not receive free travel.

 

[Old Timer]

What the Lady's Government did was graciously permit BR to spend some of its own money on the above-mentioned projects, rather than the Treasury taking it all; they weren't paid for out of the bottomless largesse of the Treasury. And that was why the ECML electrification was done on the Cheap, not to mention that it meant that rolling stock decidedly had to be designed down to a budget; see, to cite just two examples, Class 142 and the dreadful 321s.

Money of course that the previous Labour Governments took away from BR. So your point here is what ? Criticism of the Conservatives for spending money on improvements ?

I would have thought that was obvious. The quote I gave contradicts your assertion that Thatcher possessed a deep love of railways, thereby calling the rest of your pro-Tory 'facts' into question.

I can find you a dozen Labour MPs who now say that both Brown and Bliar were bad leaders, some of these quotes come from senior members of the their former Cabinets. Your comment proved nothing of substance becasue the facts belie what you are trying to prove. Incidentally I have read all the autobiographies of all the key players in the 70s and 80s including both Conservative and Labour Ministers as a background to assembling these facts. I doubt you have done similar.

None of those things ever happened while Labour was in government?

Feel free to go through Labour's years and point them out. As my list of facts - and by the way these "facts" are available and indeed taken from a Railway Trade Union website for your information, so there is no point in you trying to suggest they are wrong by placing emphasis around them - shows Labour were more concerned with cuts.

Unlike you I was working during Labour's previous times in the 70s and I can speak from experience of trying to manage the railway whereas you can simply quote from some source or other or from your own interpretation of what went on.

Oh by the way in order to save any embarrassment for you, the GN Inner Suburban Electrification scheme was actually authorised by the Conservatives in 1971.

Until now, my sole contribution to this thread was to quote someone who was in a better position than you to pass judgement on Thatcher, without adding any comment of my own; on what grounds do you say I was talking "twaddle"? Do you dispute the quote or are you just being gratuitously rude?

Your quote - and by the way I would like the attribution please - was, as with many of your posts made against mine , intended to further a particular grudge you hold. So much so that only recently you had to spend time going througfh various Railway Group and Network Rail Compoany Standards to find something with which you could contradict what I had said in a reply to someone else. I find this attitude of yours adolesecnt and tedious. I try as far as possible to ignore yours I suggest you do the same.

..."Bliar"? Tony Blair's surname contains all the letters in the word "liar", therefore he is a liar? I can't possibly argue with sound reasoning like that. Well done, you!

It's the reasoning and name accorded to him by others, which if you had been a little bit more astutely aware of events some years back you would have known.

That the word liar fits into his name is somewhat ironic bearing in mind the provable lies that he has told during his career.