Nothing like blaming the EU for something whilst knowing nothing at all about the problem/what is required or anything else related to it
As Bromp suggests, the original contract was most likely awarded under EU tendering rules.
It now seems that parts of the installation are insufficiently robust for the traffic; temporary fixes have been done but complete repair won't be done for 6 weeks, so normal service is not assured.
One issue is that UK manufacturing has been neglected, run down and not given priority by Governments for many years. There was a time when UK companies were capable of installing any kind of trackwork, could build railway rolling stock and locomotives and thus contribute to GDP and employment.
(Alan's crystal ball has misled him, I fear, after 40 years in engineering, some involved with railway equipment and having commuted by train to Leeds for years I do have relevant knowledge.)
|
The truth is that UK manufacturing has failed to compete. Oddly enough many foreign companies have very productive UK factories. We seem to have a failure of management. I know one case where the failure was a lack of willingness of the banks to lend. I have heard that German banks are more willing to work in partnership. There have been cases of UK banks driving companies into the ground. The government should in general stay away from manufacturing. Politicians are more of a liability than an asset, mostly anyway.
One ray of hope is that manufacturing costs in Asia are increasing making us more competitive. Outsourcing is less popular these days.
|
|
|
(Alan's crystal ball has misled him, I fear, after 40 years in engineering, some involved with railway equipment and having commuted by train to Leeds for years I do have relevant knowledge.)
But you still don't know what the actual probelm is or what is required to fix it - which is what my point was. Instead of knowing more about it you just went on about the EU.
|
|
|
|
Nothing like blaming the EU for something whilst knowing nothing at all about the problem/what is required or anything else related to it
I was actually quite surprised that the post didn't end with 'VOTE UKIP' as similar ones often do in the Comments sections in the Telegraph after articles - I've stopped bothering to post measured comments, as most of those also commenting are just foul-mouthed, uniformed people (likely all non-Tory voters, mostly Ukippers and Labour supporters) who appear to be there just to shout down everyone else rather than engage in informed debate.
This is not me playing the middle-class snobbish "we're always right" card - for those who don't subscribe to the DT online, you'd think it was the comments section of a cross between the far right papers, socialist worker and 'BNP News' [or whatever their rag is called], with little facts and lots of prejudice and hatred. I think its why so many people just aren't enthused by politics and particularly by the current General Election campaigns. Not enough hard facts and people telling the truth in a measured way any more - all about rants and me, me, me. Sad really.
|
I've stopped bothering to post measured comments, as most of those also commenting are just foul-mouthed, uniformed people (likely all non-Tory voters, mostly Ukippers and Labour supporters) who appear to be there just to shout down everyone else rather than engage in informed debate.
That could have been a quote from one of cast iron dave's speeches to the dwindling party/media faithful (they never risk a real public meeting like farage), any one not voting for him nor believing the spin of the day must be insulted in varying degrees from 'ignorant to gadflies and racists'.
A prime example of why the natural conservatives have left in their droves, and they won't be returning either now dave's realised he's alienated the core vote and is relying on bribing enough floaters...cast iron promise of the week increased childcare, so instead of paying some total stranger to look after your tot, the taxpayer will instead..brilliant, the party of modern parents.
|
I suppose if you want simplistic clap trap, then Nige is your man.
Unfortunately he does utter many truths, which are ignored by other parties,. How massive immigration cannot impact housing is beyond me. Only he mentions that fact, others cry shame. No doubt that attracts votes especially from the lower waged.
|
|
|
I've stopped bothering to post measured comments, as most of those also commenting are just foul-mouthed, uniformed people (likely all non-Tory voters, mostly Ukippers and Labour supporters) who appear to be there just to shout down everyone else rather than engage in informed debate.
That could have been a quote from one of cast iron dave's speeches to the dwindling party/media faithful (they never risk a real public meeting like farage), any one not voting for him nor believing the spin of the day must be insulted in varying degrees from 'ignorant to gadflies and racists'.
A prime example of why the natural conservatives have left in their droves, and they won't be returning either now dave's realised he's alienated the core vote and is relying on bribing enough floaters...cast iron promise of the week increased childcare, so instead of paying some total stranger to look after your tot, the taxpayer will instead..brilliant, the party of modern parents.
I am not a 'big fan' of the PM, but I realise that voting for his party is the only available option to avoid the disaster that is a Labour (or Labour-led coallition) government, which is what you'll get it you vote UKIP. Others commenting are right - whilst a good few of UKIP's policies are fine on the surface, look deeper and they don't have much detail, fall down on closer scrutiny (see below) and IMHO many still have the whiff of racism, hence why the BNP aren't putting up many (if any) candidates unlike the last two elections.
What they also conveniently forget is that most of their 'spending plans' revolve around not paying out the UK contribution to the EU, but this presumably doesn't include for a) what we get back in grants from them, and b) the amount of trade we would lose as a result of leaving the EU (at least over the first 5-10 years once we leave the EU and have to re-negotiate a trading agreement with them) due to new trade barriers/tarriffs and firms relocating HQs and manufacturing plants elsewhere, and most importantly, c) that the electorate would actually vote to leave.
I fully understand many UKIP supporters deep anger at the EU (unelected) apparatchiks making up laws etc without any democratic concent, and I personally want our membership to just consist of a free trade/general movement (holidays, business trips, not labour workforce) and co-operation on security and the environment (not silly laws as they enact now, more about clearing up pollution/making sure one country doesn't pollulte others air/water etc)
I also haven't heard anything from UKIP about solving the managerial/operational problems/inefficiencies that plague our public services, only about cutting services to immigrants - IMO because UKIP are also playing to the section of working class left-wing voters who in the past would vote BNP and the like if they though Labour was not addressing issues surrounding immigration (they could never bring themselves to vote Tory, even if they believed they'd do a better job on that front than Labour).
Frankly, I think most right-of centre UKIPpers either are deluded that they will some how convince the 35% of the electorate currently supporting the Tories to switch over to them, especially as they thing they'll have a country left in which to 'save' in 5 years time if Labour et al get in - they would have successfully finished the job of ruining the UK that they nearly did by 2010.
I also think they are acting very selfishly (especially the older UKIP [former Tory] voters), in that they appear not to even care that their actions will cause a Labour government and the inevitable doom that will follow, probably because they won't live to see the end. Perhaps they should think about a) what will become of their children and granchildren as a result of this action, and b) if they really wanted to effectively influence Tory pary policy and candidates, they've had ample opportunity to do so - as far as I know, all Tory constituency parties nominated prospective MPs by voting amongst local members.
Unfortunately, IMO what seems to happen is that many on the far right of the Tory party often have a view that its 'my way or the highway' and such people come across as bigoted, racist and uncaring (I'm not trying to advocate some soft-left Red Tory policies here [I can't stand Blair and NuLab]) because they (as often is reported on the local news/press) only present negative, simplistic views about issues and have very little positive/constructive things to say about improving our lives other than cutting this and that or kicking out Johnny foreigner. Whenever I've asked such people about the detail of their 'policies' they get defensive because I don't think they really know what to do.
In my view, most of those Tories moving over to UKIP are of the older generations and those on the hard right, who seem to think that leaving the EU and kicking out as many immigrants as they can will miraculously solve all the country's problems (of course, that assuming they'd be a majority voting to leave [in addition to a UKIP government] the EU, which there isn't, even now). UKIP's simplistic view on our nation's problems and how to fix it is why (as well as the underlying racism in some quarters) I won't be voting for them.
|
I agree with much of that. Farage talks a lot about immigration, but ignores the bigger picture.Most of his candidates are novices, with ill thought out ideas and no track record.
Regarding trade, we are more important to Europe than they are to us, so trade will not stop. There will be some interim agreement to allow us to buy German cars, fridges, k******s etc. We do make a net payment to Europe, partly because we support French etc farming. The impact of leaving is a real issue, and I don't know the truth. Some companies would leave. Some might arrive. We would be free of EU regs when trading with China et al. I tend to think it would be good in the long term.
Part of the problem is that we obey and enforce EU rules, the French tend to ignore them. And the EU loves regs.
I think the coalition has been beneficial, the Libs might have moderated the Tories. The prospect of Miliband and Balls and Harman and Eagle in charge fills me with dread. Throw in the SNP and disaster looms. Spending here we go.
This is not austerity, for goodness sake. Blair then Brown were profligate, spending more than we earn, in the good times too.
|
This is not austerity, for goodness sake. Blair then Brown were profligate, spending more than we earn, in the good times too.
It would be fascinating to construct a scenario where the Conservatives had won the election in 2005 and to see how PM Howard and Chancellor Letwin dealt with (a) spending plans and (b) the banking crisis.
For all the Labour hoohah in that campaign about 'Tory Cuts' the truth was more prosaic; the Tories manifesto also promised to grow spending. In so far as there were cuts they simply meant spending to 2012 was planned to grow a bit slower than under Labour.
I'd guess we'd still be pretty much where we are now.
|
|
I agree that for a long time now, and particularly since they lost big time in 1997, the Tories have generally been afraid to 'tell it like it is' out of fear of being called (thanks, Mrs. May!) the 'nasty party' (see my earlier comments), hence why I do agree with some (but not that much) of what Farage says - too many politicians keep their opinions etc in the 'bland' category out of fear of upsetting X group of people or sounding discriminatory in some way (Labour's 'racism' jibes hurt the Tories, so they didn't speak out against the uncontrolled immigration of the Labour 2nd term in office from 2001 - 2005).
There is a whole world of difference between saying that this country is full and doesn't have the finances to adequately provide (affordable homes/transport infrastructure, schools, etc) for any more people to emigrate here in large numbers, against that plus the growth in welfare dependency (up until 2010), types of crime, social problems and other issues are purely down to the immigrants themselves (which IMO is essentially what UKIP are now saying).
Studies have shown that a lower percentage of immigrants are dependent or welfare than indigenous UK citizens, similarly for many other problems faced, except for the lack of adequte housing, schools/hospitals and infrastructure, which always takes a long time to put into place as it is expensive and needs lot of planning/design input.
Much of what we hear about some of the aforementioned problems stems from sensationalist news headlines and the actions of a relatively small minority going unpunished - that argubally is a failing of even the current government, but IMO they have a lot of the 'force of socialism' to contend with that tries to stop them (including some in the government from the LibDem side), such as elements of the Police, local councils, NHS, school staff, DSS (or whatever they are called this year), Quangos, 'charities' (often very politicised thanks to Labour) and local politicians who seem very keen on keeping/encouraging extermists and doing little to stop real criminality whilst clamping down on politically correct issues.
The case in the Telegraph detailed over the past few days of the (now former) London Borough of Tower Hamlets mayor and the IMO reprehensible actions of the Police and many left-leaning local/national organisations (almost all of which should be neutral and should know better) - note today's report says that even after the damning verdict (and comments by) the election judge, the Police are STILL investigating those who reported the election fraud and many other 'activities' of the former mayor and his friends as if they are IMO in the pocket of those condemned by the judge. People though should not mistake the cowardly actions of a relative few for those of a whole community or ethnic group, who often live in fear of intimidation, losing their job or worse if they speak out. Those who did in that case should be commended.
One of the problems I've always had with parties like UKIP is that they say they are different to the established parties, but to be honest, I see very little difference in their general behaviour when looking at their politicians, except with (IMO) the whiff of racism amongst some as previously described - they in my view have gone way too far. I know every party has their 'loonies', but to prentend they are a 'breath of fresh air' is far from the truth.
Its a shame, as there are some very good UKIP people (including MP Douglas Carswell) who in my view have been seduced by Farage's oratory, but who may come in time to regret them switching allegences - to be honest, I've never heard any former Tory (now UKIP member) make a credible argument for their change apart from saying its because we want out of the EU - as I said before, doing so won't solve all our problems, so why risk everything (Labour getting in or with even more left-wing socialists pulling their strings) just for one strand of an argument - after all, most people don't agree on everything but seem to be able to successfully work together.
|
Immigration is a curates egg. Bring in more people, and we fill the low paid jobs we don't want, such as gutting fish and picking crops. I saw loads of East Europeans working as shop staff. These jobs do not help our low productivity, in fact the opposite. Yes, they increase GDP, yes they use less health resources and claim less benefits than the average Brit. And they help pay pensions. So it looks like a win win. But the average includes the elderly who make the most demands on the health service. And the young who use schools. So really it is a Ponzi scheme. Good in the short term, but they too will get old and will have children going to schools.
And I fail to see how 300,000 isn't going to make severe demands on housing and other services.
I just wish normal politicians addressed this issue.
|
|
|
|
By 2005 the banking crisis was in place and ready to burst, and spending had already been increased lots by Blair. So By then the change might have been small. Brown and Darling deserve considerable credit for the way they handled the crisis. Once they bailed out the banks, the rest of the world followed, and I believe it was Brown's idea. Would the Tories have done such a good job? It's not clear.
But, Brown removed responsibility for overseeing the banks and created the FSA. From then on no attention was paid to the possibility of a banking crisis. They war gamed a cyber attack, and a big war, to see the impact, but virtually ignored a banking crisis. When it did hit, no-one knew who was supposed to respond, the Bank of England, the FSA, or the government. They spent a worrying amount of time looking at each other while the Northern Rock was going down, and a run started on the bank. It is no exaggeration to say that the UK almost collapsed, as the major UK banks were close to collapse, and service tills and cheques would have failed. So people would have been unable to pay for goods. And it would have brought down other banks around the world.
And yes the Tories did not see this coming. Almost no-one did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
... most of those also commenting are just foul-mouthed, uniformed people ...
Another nice one - I'm trying to imagine that .... :-)
|
|
Ahh, I see you spotted my deliberate mistake! :-)
My spell-checker on Firefox doesn't work on the forum when typing messages.
|
My spell-checker on Firefox doesn't work on the forum when typing messages.
Why would it - you may very well have meant that ... :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
