Handy for a restorative Martini to steady the nerves......subsequently I've been flying Malaysian.....jolly good crew.....and they no longer fly over the Ukrain....)
Am pretty disciplined in BA to try and consolidate my favours... provided they are price competitive of course...
BA Gold, SQ Solitaire, Virgin Gold.....they all fall away sooner or later.....Jason!
Since I have BA Gold For Life* am not too worried. I don't think airline status is hereditary...
* still working on GGL for Life which would be really cool
How many years to you have to stay Gold before they give it to you for life? They keep stealing mine!
35,000 Tier Points. Which - for someone doing 2,000 TP a year - is 17 and a half years of work. I've been in this game 20 years, and I'm not there yet...
I give up now, never going to get close to that, unless I can persuade a customer to fly me half way round the world in biz class every fortnight for the next decade!
I am travelling to Edinburgh today, tomorrow and Friday, Aberdeen on Thursday. You don't earn many Tier points as a Scots lawyer!
Personally I prefer it that way. I have gone from finding flying mildly exciting to numbingly tedious and frustrating with all the idiotic security nonsense. I now generally take the train or drive when coming south to London when I used to fly.
Completely agree. I now detest flying.
I don't mind it. I'm off to Zurich tomorrow for which I have to get an early flight and ..... grr.... I have to get up at the unfeasibly early hour of 4:30 am.
What really annoys is that no matter what I wear and despite taking off practically all my clothes before going through security I still set off every alarm going.
So if tomorrow you see a bleary eyed woman in her jim jams going through security at Terminal 5, that will be me.
I've done the survey - haven't voted for anyone to be Poster of the Year. No one on here deserves it - most people are pompous, arrogant dimwits whose grasp of politics and most aspects of life is tenuous at best. The worst is that halfwit Stodge but mercifully he doesn't post as often as some.
Remember the Golden Rule of PB:
Anyone who posts between 10pm and 6am is BAD Anyone who posts between 6am and 2pm is MAD Anyone who posts between 2pm and 10pm is SAD
I think POTY has to be between AM (AntiFrank) and Plato...
I vote tim...
You have to give Plato credit where it's due she predicted Brexit AND Trump would triumph...
Alistair has had an awful year and especially during Brexit he made PB compulsive viwing.
TSE has had a terrible year as well and he's done a good job of keeping the PB show on the road (despite all his trauma's)
Maybe we could have a split POTY?
Aww no, has TSE had a really *****y year too? (Aside from politically, obviously, where he's had a wretched time which will likely have work-related impact too. But he wouldn't be alone in having a politically horrible 2016: YellowSubmarine, Southam, DrFox and various others have my sympathy on that front too.) If he has, I'm sorry I haven't picked up on it. He's done such a huge amount of work for this site, and been in such good form, that I didn't notice any grave personal travails. If so I do hope things look up a bit next year.
Thanks for the sympathy, but it has been a great year for me too. Leicester won the Premier League, and I had £1 on ew at 3000/1, topped up along the way.
There are practical issues, but I do feel stripped of part of my personal identity. I also feel an invisible barrier between myself and other Britons and my many EU friends and colleagues. I feel less patriotic because of what I see my country turning into. For both sides this was not just an issue of economics, but rather an emotional one concerning Britain and its place in the world.
It will overshadow my family for years. I can no longer talk politics and world affairs with my parents, something that previously was a big part of our lives, and neither can my son or brother.
Most of the 52% have felt that way for years.
I agree. My Tory Assoc. is run by the poncy liberal elite and you would have thought that us despicable Leavers had voted for the BNP they way they treat us. They genuinely believe that the 'populists', the majority is too thick to have a vote and we are rabid racists to a man and women.
When I explain the referendum was a Tory manifesto commitment and most Tory members voted Leave, they ignore it. Ejits!
So, now we talk in closed circles, little corners. The elite are arrogant f*ckers. That's why I was happy Trump won, and Renzi and Cameron lost. Not because I believe in the results, but because the elite needs to be put back in their bourgeois box.
I've done the survey - haven't voted for anyone to be Poster of the Year. No one on here deserves it - most people are pompous, arrogant dimwits whose grasp of politics and most aspects of life is tenuous at best. The worst is that halfwit Stodge but mercifully he doesn't post as often as some.
Remember the Golden Rule of PB:
Anyone who posts between 10pm and 6am is BAD Anyone who posts between 6am and 2pm is MAD Anyone who posts between 2pm and 10pm is SAD
But that's the fun of it. Who wants to live in a society where every one is civil, but shallow. Keep up the Bad, Mad, Sad.
I've done the survey - haven't voted for anyone to be Poster of the Year. No one on here deserves it - most people are pompous, arrogant dimwits whose grasp of politics and most aspects of life is tenuous at best. The worst is that halfwit Stodge but mercifully he doesn't post as often as some.
Remember the Golden Rule of PB:
Anyone who posts between 10pm and 6am is BAD Anyone who posts between 6am and 2pm is MAD Anyone who posts between 2pm and 10pm is SAD
Since I have BA Gold For Life* am not too worried. I don't think airline status is hereditary...
* still working on GGL for Life which would be really cool
How many years to you have to stay Gold before they give it to you for life? They keep stealing mine!
35,000 Tier Points. Which - for someone doing 2,000 TP a year - is 17 and a half years of work. I've been in this game 20 years, and I'm not there yet...
I give up now, n canound the world in biz class every fortnight for the next decade!
I am travelling to Edinburgh today, tomorrow and Friday, Aberdeen on Thursday. You don't earn many Tier points as a Scots lawyer!
Personally I prefer it that way. I have gone from finding flying mildly exciting to numbingly tedious and frustrating with all the idiotic security nonsense. I now generally take the train or drive when coming south to London when I used to fly.
Completely agree. I now detest flying.
I don't mind it. I'm off to Zurich tomorrow for which I have to get an early flight and ..... grr.... I have to get up at the unfeasibly early hour of 4:30 am.
What really annoys is that no matter what I wear and despite taking off practically all my clothes before going through security I still set off every alarm going.
So if tomorrow you see a bleary eyed woman in her jim jams going through security at Terminal 5, that will be me.
Mr. Stodge, you're clearly forgetting the civilised and enlightened conversation that revolves around Formula 1. Who can deny the delights of differential front end grip?
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
I've done the survey - haven't voted for anyone to be Poster of the Year. No one on here deserves it - most people are pompous, arrogant dimwits whose grasp of politics and most aspects of life is tenuous at best. The worst is that halfwit Stodge but mercifully he doesn't post as often as some.
Remember the Golden Rule of PB:
Anyone who posts between 10pm and 6am is BAD Anyone who posts between 6am and 2pm is MAD Anyone who posts between 2pm and 10pm is SAD
Surely the golden rule also has a bit in brackets at the end, to cover the sweet spot, normally but not always around 5.30am, when you can be both mad and sad?
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Chiltern don't have guards and it all runs ok.. (someone told me)
Greetings Charles and Carlotta from the BA Lounge at the Heathrow Terminal 5 B gates!
The Concorde lounge - when there was Concorde - was special......watching all those grey suits queue up to board.....
I took Concorde exactly once, from NYC to London right at the end when they had special promotions on. It was an experience I will never forget.
When BA had to withdraw many of their 737s after the Manchester fire they put Concorde on the Newcastle to London run - of course it was taking off with a quarter of a tank full of fuel, rather than a full load to get to New York - so the pilots had fun flooring the thing - rightly reckoning the novelty value far exceeded any noise complaints - I missed it, but had a friend enjoyed the ride!
Handy for a restorative Martini to steady the nerves......subsequently I've been flying Malaysian.....jolly good crew.....and they no longer fly over the Ukraine, tho unlike SQ they do fly over Iran (Garuda avoided Iran recently too....)
Am pretty disciplined in BA to try and consolidate my favours... provided they are price competitive of course...
BA Gold, SQ Solitaire, Virgin Gold.....they all fall away sooner or later.....Jason!
Since I have BA Gold For Life* am not too worried. I don't think airline status is hereditary...
* still working on GGL for Life which would be really cool
How many years to you have to stay Gold before they give it to you for life? They keep stealing mine!
35,000 Tier Points. Which - for someone doing 2,000 TP a year - is 17 and a half years of work. I've been in this game 20 years, and I'm not there yet...
I give up now, never going to get close to that, unless I can persuade a customer to fly me half way round the world in biz class every fortnight for the next decade!
I am travelling to Edinburgh today, tomorrow and Friday, Aberdeen on Thursday. You don't earn many Tier points as a Scots lawyer!
Personally I prefer it that way. I have gone from finding flying mildly exciting to numbingly tedious and frustrating with all the idiotic security nonsense. I now generally take the train or drive when coming south to London when I used to fly.
Another train fan - when working in Newcastle (nearly) always took the train to London - to the bemusement of American co-workers.....
Chiltern don't have guards and it all runs ok.. (someone told me)
I travelled to Warwick on a Chiltern train back in August. Very comfortable on the way there - free WiFi with a good speed onboard. Journey back much less pleasant.
The trains were two or three coaches long. South West Trains run trains of 12 coaches. Maybe there's an issue there. Southern run trains of varying lengths from four to twelve coaches.
Interesting Ian hislop piece in the new statesman. Something for everyone to get angry about - criticising populists on left and right for reacting so poorly to criticism and trying to shut down discussion, young people with safe spaces and no platforming, it runs the gamut. Appropriately entitled the age of outrage.
Left of centre PBers, there is a glimmer of hope! I don't remotely pretend to follow the ins and outs of this, but seems Momentum is eating itself, as all hard left groups always do.
"The conduct of the most ultra-left delegates was disgraceful. Jill Mountford — leading member of the Alliance for Worker’s Liberty (AWL) — was openly bullying Huda Elmi — BAME officer for Labour Students. Jill was shouting at the younger delegates, heckling them when they spoke, patronising and mocking them directly to their faces, and leaping up out of her chair to contradict every statement they made. It is astonishing that such behaviour is tolerated in Momentum."
Chiltern don't have guards and it all runs ok.. (someone told me)
I travelled to Warwick on a Chiltern train back in August. Very comfortable on the way there - free WiFi with a good speed onboard. Journey back much less pleasant.
The trains were two or three coaches long. South West Trains run trains of 12 coaches. Maybe there's an issue there. Southern run trains of varying lengths from four to twelve coaches.
I don't think C2C have guards either.
Something in the dark recesses of my mind makes me think that Driver Only Operation (guardless trains) are restricted to eight coaches because of the problems of a driver seeing whether the doors are clear before setting off.
Call-me-Dave, Boris and Zac failed to learn the lessons of history -- and Zac only had to look back a few weeks to see that referendums are invariably fought on different grounds from where they were called.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Interesting Ian hislop piece in the new statesman. Something for everyone to get angry about - criticising populists on left and right for reacting so poorly to criticism and trying to shut down discussion, young people with safe spaces and no platforming, it runs the gamut. Appropriately entitled the age of outrage.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
Mr. Stodge, whilst I'm uncertain whether it was right or not [have changed my mind a bit] to do anything in Libya, if we'd done nothing people would be complaining endlessly of how we let a massacre happen. It was lose-lose in that regard.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
I'm not convinced there's a "manifestly" about it. There seems some evidence that longer trains in particular benefit from a guard providing greater visibility than a driver stuck at one end with all the mirrors and monitors on offer.
This has gone on for months - whatever the rights and wrongs, the passengers (let's call them that, not "customers") deserve a decent service. Both sides are in the wrong - I would like to see an interventionist Government as this one seems to be (or wants to be) banging heads together and either agreeing a 90-day cooling off period or threatening to take away the franchise if this isn't resolved or similar.
If the cost of "breaking" the RMT (which seems the desire of Go Via and a number of Conservative MPs) is months of lousy service, is it a price worth paying just to show they are stronger than the union ?
The poor passengers (facing a 2.3% increase from January) are the ones who should be going on strike or refusing to pay the extra fares (those whose companies don't pay for the tickets that is).
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
I'm far from convinced (though could be) that today's statement about NR and the TOCs sharing responsibility for maintenance is sensible - there are a great many complexities that could trip it up. Just one is *which* TOCs have the responsibility on lines where many operators run trains.
Hopefully these issues have been thought through. (yes, I know).
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
I'm far from convinced (though could be) that today's statement about NR and the TOCs sharing responsibility for maintenance is sensible - there are a great many complexities that could trip it up. Just one is *which* TOCs have the responsibility on lines where many operators run trains.
Hopefully these issues have been thought through. (yes, I know).
I agree (and with stodge) that the detail will be critical. Even so, working together has to be a good idea; something the RMT seems frequently incapable of.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
Time is pretty anti-Trump, so I wouldn't back him at those odds. Putin seems value this year, winning the Syrian war, breaking up europe via populist nationalism and manipulating the POTUS election to put his man in the Oval Office. He is the puppetmaster extraordinaire!
Rather like the number of Conservatives being happy with Corbyn's performance, how many of those annoyed with the government over Brexit hold that view because it's not been implemented yet?
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
Well I've started reading regularly again but not enough to comment on poster of the year. As for those who think it's especially bad tempered? I remember it being as bad and I do think that people have had far more reason to get narky this year than in some previous years.
Time is pretty anti-Trump, so I wouldn't back him at those odds. Putin seems value this year, winning the Syrian war, breaking up europe via populist nationalism and manipulating the POTUS election to put his man in the Oval Office. He is the puppetmaster extraordinaire!
Putin won it a few years ago, and twice might be over-egging the pudding, especially as we do not know how Syria will end, and I doubt Time will want to accuse Putin of rigging the election without proof.
My guess would be one of the groups eg Flint or Crispr but I do not usually bet on these things. It is hard to know from this distance what American opinion-formers think of Modi or Erdogan, or even Farage.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
< I agree (and with stodge) that the detail will be critical. Even so, working together has to be a good idea; something the RMT seems frequently incapable of.
Thank you for the kind word, David. As far as the RMT is concerned, I was fascinated to read of Boris's experiences with them as Mayor. I was certain there was going to be a big showdown engineered by Boris and TfL to break the RMT.
It never happened - the late Bob Crow was too canny to fall into that trap. Indeed, Boris found the public rhetoric wasn't matched in private - the ticket offices are gone (regrettable) and we now have a 24-hour tube service on some lines (patchy but growing) but the RMT negotiators have ensured their members have done well from this process.
This is the point of the union - to represent their members and ensure they aren't disadvantaged or their job security threatened by changes (improvements if you like).
So we have a business which improves and takes its workers with it by ensuring said workers are properly paid and recognised - perhaps all companies could do that and maybe put workers on the board (Mrs May thinks that a good idea or she did until the CBI told her it wasn't).
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Possibly not. I could happily wear some restrictions of transport ownership or business models if it would guarantee zero strikes.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
This won't do anything to add capacity for existing normal services for Northern, Trans-Pennine, etc. I guess if the current East Coast Service to KX is reduced to one train an hour when HS2 is running it will free up one path per hour in and out, but that won't achieve much benefit.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Or electric companies, gas companies, water companies. All vital, and all open to foreign ownership.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
This won't do anything to add capacity for existing normal services for Northern, Trans-Pennine, etc. I guess if the current East Coast Service to KX is reduced to one train an hour when HS2 is running it will free up one path per hour in and out, but that won't achieve much benefit.
I'm not sure that follows. If I get a chance I'll try and dig out the figures later.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Or electric companies, gas companies, water companies. All vital, and all open to foreign ownership.
Once we are out of the EU we will be free to renationalise what we want. The sunlit uplands beckon...
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
This won't do anything to add capacity for existing normal services for Northern, Trans-Pennine, etc. I guess if the current East Coast Service to KX is reduced to one train an hour when HS2 is running it will free up one path per hour in and out, but that won't achieve much benefit.
I'm not sure that follows. If I get a chance I'll try and dig out the figures later.
Thanks. There were plans to add extra platforms where the carpark is, but I think that has all been shelved now. Oh, for the days when there used to be 3 (or was it 4?) mainline stations serving the city - plenty of capacity back then (yes, I know, it made changing trains a bit of a faff).
Labour is putting down a motion tomorrow to demand the Government publish their plans for Brexit. The motion includes the following sub-paragraph ... ""confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50."
There's the devil in the detail of the motion. Who decides what will damage the negotiating position? It has to be the negotiators - the Government. So what's the point of the motion?
The Remain MPs think they should make that decision. They're either terminally stupid or deliberately being childish (I'm being kind here).
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Yes, why not?
So long as they follow British laws, like not striking, not restricting services etc - then how does it matter who owns it?
If they don't follow British laws then they can be renationalised and they're no longer foreign owned and it doesn't matter.
I haven't given Sleaford & North Hykeham (hereafter S&NH) much thought to be honest which is very rude of me.
Looking at the past results, the only time the LDs finished second was in 2010 so that would be a very good result. The Conservative vote share is usually around 50% (43% in 1997) so this is a seat which has stayed Conservative even when the Party was being heavily defeated elsewhere.
The barometer for Conservative vote share is therefore 50% - above that is fine, below that and you might start asking a few questions. Until 2010, Labour always finished second and usually a clear second but lost a lot of ground in 2010. 25% would be, you'd think, a good result for Labour and anything below 20% a concern.
As for the LDs, the deposit was saved last time so it's reasonable to suppose it will be saved this time. Coming second with 20% would be a huge result - 10-15% more likely.
The two conundrums here are UKIP and the Lincolnshire Independents. The former came a fair third last time and in a strong LEAVE area should do well but it's not gone so well for UKIP recently and if they could finish a strong second, that would be progress.
Marianne Overton polled 6.4% in 2010 and 5.2% last time but in a by election is the kind of candidate who could come from nowhere and surprise everyone and probably to the detriment of all the other candidates.
I've no idea how it will go apart from a Conservative hold being far and away the most likely (anything else would be a late entrant for Most Dramatic Political Event of the Year).
Thanks. There were plans to add extra platforms where the carpark is, but I think that has all been shelved now. Oh, for the days when there used to be 3 (or was it 4?) mainline stations serving the city - plenty of capacity back then (yes, I know, it made changing trains a bit of a faff).
That plan was shelved, but AFAIK the current plan is for a T-shaped station, with the present station forming the top bar and the HS2 platforms the vertical, with a shared concourse between them. Therefore there will be extra platforms though generally only accessible for HS2 services.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
I'm not convinced there's a "manifestly" about it. There seems some evidence that longer trains in particular benefit from a guard providing greater visibility than a driver stuck at one end with all the mirrors and monitors on offer.
This has gone on for months - whatever the rights and wrongs, the passengers (let's call them that, not "customers") deserve a decent service. Both sides are in the wrong - I would like to see an interventionist Government as this one seems to be (or wants to be) banging heads together and either agreeing a 90-day cooling off period or threatening to take away the franchise if this isn't resolved or similar.
If the cost of "breaking" the RMT (which seems the desire of Go Via and a number of Conservative MPs) is months of lousy service, is it a price worth paying just to show they are stronger than the union ?
The poor passengers (facing a 2.3% increase from January) are the ones who should be going on strike or refusing to pay the extra fares (those whose companies don't pay for the tickets that is).
Taking away the franchise would punish the company - it's what the union wants.
Southern has promised no job losses - the guards are just spending more time on customer* service
There is a regulator (not Ofrail, sadly) that has validated the proposal from a safety perspective.
There should be restrictions on striking in vital public services.
I see on CNN an elector from Texas refusing to vote for Trump the electoral college how many others could follow suit . With the recounts as well does anyone think Trump could still be denied the Presidency?
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Or electric companies, gas companies, water companies. All vital, and all open to foreign ownership.
Harold Macmillan may have been right that a lot of privatisations were more about selling the family silver (ie selling assets to raise money) than about introducing competition and free market economics as the rhetoric of the time had us believe.
We'd do better taking back control of the utilities and saving money by closing down MI5 since we seem happy to give away any secrets foreign spies may be after, and to allow potentially hostile foreign governments own or build our infrastructure.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Yes, why not?
So long as they follow British laws, like not striking, not restricting services etc - then how does it matter who owns it?
If they don't follow British laws then they can be renationalised and they're no longer foreign owned and it doesn't matter.
*Ahem* People are waiting for messages in the pb diplomacy game. Of course being Turkey you might not bother with myself... but England, Germany and Italy - well they are your immediate neighbours. Mute players don't do well and the game will reset if you don't put in any moves for the first turn.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Yes, why not?
So long as they follow British laws, like not striking, not restricting services etc - then how does it matter who owns it?
If they don't follow British laws then they can be renationalised and they're no longer foreign owned and it doesn't matter.
Leaving aside the years any attempted nationalisation would spend in Judicial Review. Which company is going to sign up to invest in a utility if they feel there is a substantial risk of being renationalised unless the terms of the contract make that prohibitively expensive, even compensating the owner at fair market value is probably politically if not financially beyond most governments these days.
Thanks. There were plans to add extra platforms where the carpark is, but I think that has all been shelved now. Oh, for the days when there used to be 3 (or was it 4?) mainline stations serving the city - plenty of capacity back then (yes, I know, it made changing trains a bit of a faff).
That plan was shelved, but AFAIK the current plan is for a T-shaped station, with the present station forming the top bar and the HS2 platforms the vertical, with a shared concourse between them. Therefore there will be extra platforms though generally only accessible for HS2 services.
Actually, looking at one of the artists' impressions in the report (page 15), this shows extra platforms where the carpark is, although these are not mentioned in the report.
I see on CNN an elector from Texas refusing to vote for Trump the electoral college how many others could follow suit . With the recounts as well does anyone think Trump could still be denied the Presidency?
Very unlikely, unless the faithless electors actually vote for Clinton to give her 270 - but most of them will be Republican activists!
Any funny business and it goes to the House, who will elect Trump as it has a Republican majority.
Hence today's response to the proposal about Network Rail and service providers sharing responsibility for maintenance - something which is manifestly sensible if the details can be sorted - being a 'threat to safety'. Every change is always a 'threat to safety' because (1) the public might buy it and take their side, (2) that's a pretext for a strike, and (3) causing maximum disruption is the most likely way to return the railways to public ownership.
The devil will be in the detail of Grayling's proposals so perhaps we should see what he's proposing before the inevitable kneejerk anti-Union tirade.
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
We just had an announcement yesterday about three new stations around Leeds - including one that almost serves Leeds-Bradford airport. However, Leeds station is a major pinch point, and I can't see what can be done to increase capacity and allow more trains to run.
This won't do anything to add capacity for existing normal services for Northern, Trans-Pennine, etc. I guess if the current East Coast Service to KX is reduced to one train an hour when HS2 is running it will free up one path per hour in and out, but that won't achieve much benefit.
I'm not sure that follows. If I get a chance I'll try and dig out the figures later.
Thanks. There were plans to add extra platforms where the carpark is, but I think that has all been shelved now. Oh, for the days when there used to be 3 (or was it 4?) mainline stations serving the city - plenty of capacity back then (yes, I know, it made changing trains a bit of a faff).
There were never any such "days". Leeds only ever had 2 mainline stations - City, which is the present day station, and Central. Given that Leeds Central closed in the 1960s you must be pretty old to remember using it.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Why would insulating a sector of the economy from foreign competition make it better?
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
I'm not convinced there's a "manifestly" about it. There seems some evidence that longer trains in particular benefit from a guard providing greater visibility than a driver stuck at one end with all the mirrors and monitors on offer.
This has gone on for months - whatever the rights and wrongs, the passengers (let's call them that, not "customers") deserve a decent service. Both sides are in the wrong - I would like to see an interventionist Government as this one seems to be (or wants to be) banging heads together and either agreeing a 90-day cooling off period or threatening to take away the franchise if this isn't resolved or similar.
If the cost of "breaking" the RMT (which seems the desire of Go Via and a number of Conservative MPs) is months of lousy service, is it a price worth paying just to show they are stronger than the union ?
The poor passengers (facing a 2.3% increase from January) are the ones who should be going on strike or refusing to pay the extra fares (those whose companies don't pay for the tickets that is).
Taking away the franchise would punish the company - it's what the union wants.
Southern has promised no job losses - the guards are just spending more time on customer* service
There is a regulator (not Ofrail, sadly) that has validated the proposal from a safety perspective.
There should be restrictions on striking in vital public services.
* they pay. That makes them a customer
Asymmetric aims. What is good for the union is not necessarily bad for the passengers. I just don't see how Southern can come back from this, as a brand, as an entity.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Or electric companies, gas companies, water companies. All vital, and all open to foreign ownership.
Once we are out of the EU we will be free to renationalise what we want. The sunlit uplands beckon...
The sunlit uplands of British Rail? Clearly you are a young man.
Specifically the huge grin on Ruth's face when she won Edinburgh Central. Not the most important thing of the year but the one that gave me the most cheer.
David, you need to get out more.
LOL, very good Malcolm. And a merry Christmas to you and yours.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Why would insulating a sector of the economy from foreign competition make it better?
In most cases there is no foreign competition, just foreign ownership of de facto monopoly utilities.
I see on CNN an elector from Texas refusing to vote for Trump the electoral college how many others could follow suit . With the recounts as well does anyone think Trump could still be denied the Presidency?
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Yes, why not?
So long as they follow British laws, like not striking, not restricting services etc - then how does it matter who owns it?
If they don't follow British laws then they can be renationalised and they're no longer foreign owned and it doesn't matter.
*Ahem* People are waiting for messages in the pb diplomacy game. Of course being Turkey you might not bother with myself... but England, Germany and Italy - well they are your immediate neighbours. Mute players don't do well and the game will reset if you don't put in any moves for the first turn.
I told Mrs Stodge last evening the Southern Rail dispute had gone beyond a joke. She opined it was surprising to her the train had given got there.
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
Because you manifestly don't need guards to do it and, as a private company, they should be allowed to make simple business decisions without politically motivated unions holding customers hostage.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
Is this the industrial relations Turing test? How do you distinguish between a union fighting job cuts for political reasons and a union protecting its members?
I think the simple answer is for the government to legislate that transport services are essential services (which they clearly are) - and thus lose the right to strike.
If transport services are so vital -- and many would agree with you on that point -- is it right that the government should allow their ownership by foreign companies and even foreign governments? I doubt the Americans would wear it.
Why would insulating a sector of the economy from foreign competition make it better?
The point presumably is that there is no competition. An analogous argument that @MaxPB was making about Openreach.
Comments
Fortunately I don't think that would happen.
Going through the questionnaire, must say Rosberg's retirement was the biggest shock for me [I am answering the survey on politics, though].
*hums the Dutch national anthem*
I've done the survey - haven't voted for anyone to be Poster of the Year. No one on here deserves it - most people are pompous, arrogant dimwits whose grasp of politics and most aspects of life is tenuous at best. The worst is that halfwit Stodge but mercifully he doesn't post as often as some.
Remember the Golden Rule of PB:
Anyone who posts between 10pm and 6am is BAD
Anyone who posts between 6am and 2pm is MAD
Anyone who posts between 2pm and 10pm is SAD
They'll probably give it to Hillary just to really rub it in, complete with sycophantic eulogy!
More seriously, there's too much macho posturing from both sides, aided and abetted it has to be said by a series of rent-a-quote Conservative MPs for constituencies in the Southern franchise who line up for a bit of union-bashing to impress their constituents.
If one of them was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions or offer to act as a mediator etc, etc. South West Trains seem quite happy with guards who open and close the doors and drivers who drive the trains. I don't know why Southern have picked this argument.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38212818
In all seriousness, who has been the most effective Foreign Secretary out of William Hague, Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson ?
Probably a more interesting question than deciding who should be "Poster of the Year".
The trains were two or three coaches long. South West Trains run trains of 12 coaches. Maybe there's an issue there. Southern run trains of varying lengths from four to twelve coaches.
I don't think C2C have guards either.
At least it's not like that in here:)
Although, the day is young.
"The conduct of the most ultra-left delegates was disgraceful. Jill Mountford — leading member of the Alliance for Worker’s Liberty (AWL) — was openly bullying Huda Elmi — BAME officer for Labour Students. Jill was shouting at the younger delegates, heckling them when they spoke, patronising and mocking them directly to their faces, and leaping up out of her chair to contradict every statement they made. It is astonishing that such behaviour is tolerated in Momentum."
https://medium.com/@lauracatrionamurray/momentum-vs-inertia-e525c8f9e217#.jerpnjnaa
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/06/sleaford-and-north-hykeham-voters-express-impatience-over-brexit-byelection-theresa-may-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Edit: and a classic example of different sides in the dispute getting different messages from the same report:
http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/independent-rail-safety-body-concludes-no-increased-risk-from-driver-only-operation/
https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/toc-funded-report-exposes-doo-dangers/
Call-me-Dave, Boris and Zac failed to learn the lessons of history -- and Zac only had to look back a few weeks to see that referendums are invariably fought on different grounds from where they were called.
They can't give in because the unions would run riot. Most unions are constructive. The RMT is not.
This has gone on for months - whatever the rights and wrongs, the passengers (let's call them that, not "customers") deserve a decent service. Both sides are in the wrong - I would like to see an interventionist Government as this one seems to be (or wants to be) banging heads together and either agreeing a 90-day cooling off period or threatening to take away the franchise if this isn't resolved or similar.
If the cost of "breaking" the RMT (which seems the desire of Go Via and a number of Conservative MPs) is months of lousy service, is it a price worth paying just to show they are stronger than the union ?
The poor passengers (facing a 2.3% increase from January) are the ones who should be going on strike or refusing to pay the extra fares (those whose companies don't pay for the tickets that is).
Hopefully these issues have been thought through. (yes, I know).
I travel by rail most days and of course I want to travel in safety and comfort (in that order). Was Railtrack a huge success ? Perhaps it would be welcome for Conservatives to admit the Major privatisation was flawed before rushing to change everything once again.
The onus has to be on the provision of a safe and evolving rail network not the acquisition of profit by private companies. I don't care who runs the railway - I do care about companies making big profits when the service they provide is deteriorating. That people are forced to pay thousands of pounds for annual tickets that allow them not a seat but to stand on a train just to get to and from London is absurd.
The network is improving - the London Bridge project is getting there and the redevelopment of Waterloo and the return to use of the former Eurostar platforms is long overdue and there are improvements in other parts of the country but the demand is relentless and growing.
http://news.leeds.gov.uk/plans-to-transform-leeds-station-into-high-speed-transport-hub-revealed
Farage as likely as Clinton sounds right, both very unlikely.
In all seriousness, as someone living in an area affected by HS2, what's the local mood like about the scheme?
My guess would be one of the groups eg Flint or Crispr but I do not usually bet on these things. It is hard to know from this distance what American opinion-formers think of Modi or Erdogan, or even Farage.
A sitting room somewhere in Petersburg, 1917.
'Well Pyotr, you and your mates spent all yesterday prancing about dressed up as evil Cossacks and Okhrana, is it storming the Winter Palace today?'
'Don't think so love, we've made our point.'
It never happened - the late Bob Crow was too canny to fall into that trap. Indeed, Boris found the public rhetoric wasn't matched in private - the ticket offices are gone (regrettable) and we now have a 24-hour tube service on some lines (patchy but growing) but the RMT negotiators have ensured their members have done well from this process.
This is the point of the union - to represent their members and ensure they aren't disadvantaged or their job security threatened by changes (improvements if you like).
So we have a business which improves and takes its workers with it by ensuring said workers are properly paid and recognised - perhaps all companies could do that and maybe put workers on the board (Mrs May thinks that a good idea or she did until the CBI told her it wasn't).
16% of employees in the specialised construction industry received around zero pay growth between 2015 and 2016 https://t.co/ZGcFMgUzj9 https://t.co/0jTpUa14re
@OldKingCole Best wishes for your speedy recovery
Re the survey, I chose @Patrick as POTY as he always says interesting common sense stuff.
Unsung hero - Brendan Chiltern, leader of Labour Leave
Gove as biggest political loser - I hope May gives him a serious job very soon.
Loser of the year was Jeb! He spent *how much* to come almost last in three primaries?
There's the devil in the detail of the motion. Who decides what will damage the negotiating position? It has to be the negotiators - the Government. So what's the point of the motion?
The Remain MPs think they should make that decision. They're either terminally stupid or deliberately being childish (I'm being kind here).
So long as they follow British laws, like not striking, not restricting services etc - then how does it matter who owns it?
If they don't follow British laws then they can be renationalised and they're no longer foreign owned and it doesn't matter.
I haven't given Sleaford & North Hykeham (hereafter S&NH) much thought to be honest which is very rude of me.
Looking at the past results, the only time the LDs finished second was in 2010 so that would be a very good result. The Conservative vote share is usually around 50% (43% in 1997) so this is a seat which has stayed Conservative even when the Party was being heavily defeated elsewhere.
The barometer for Conservative vote share is therefore 50% - above that is fine, below that and you might start asking a few questions. Until 2010, Labour always finished second and usually a clear second but lost a lot of ground in 2010. 25% would be, you'd think, a good result for Labour and anything below 20% a concern.
As for the LDs, the deposit was saved last time so it's reasonable to suppose it will be saved this time. Coming second with 20% would be a huge result - 10-15% more likely.
The two conundrums here are UKIP and the Lincolnshire Independents. The former came a fair third last time and in a strong LEAVE area should do well but it's not gone so well for UKIP recently and if they could finish a strong second, that would be progress.
Marianne Overton polled 6.4% in 2010 and 5.2% last time but in a by election is the kind of candidate who could come from nowhere and surprise everyone and probably to the detriment of all the other candidates.
I've no idea how it will go apart from a Conservative hold being far and away the most likely (anything else would be a late entrant for Most Dramatic Political Event of the Year).
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/popular-riding-school-facing-demolition-to-make-way-for-hs2-line-1-8124635
Southern has promised no job losses - the guards are just spending more time on customer* service
There is a regulator (not Ofrail, sadly) that has validated the proposal from a safety perspective.
There should be restrictions on striking in vital public services.
* they pay. That makes them a customer
We'd do better taking back control of the utilities and saving money by closing down MI5 since we seem happy to give away any secrets foreign spies may be after, and to allow potentially hostile foreign governments own or build our infrastructure.
Just a suggestion.
Any funny business and it goes to the House, who will elect Trump as it has a Republican majority.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy-_4PKWgAASDNf.jpg