FlyTheNest

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... bles-claim


Southern rail crisis: Grayling backs regulator after 'shambles' claim
Transport secretary denies chief inspector is ‘government place-man’ as union derides report saying driver-only operation is safe

Shocked I tell you shocked!

Chris Grayling taking the side of a privatised company in dispute with a trade union............

No cant believe it.Must be one of the fake news stories! (Satire....I hope)

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Simon Jenkins clickbait.

His work has been junk recently.

Recently? The last decent piece was...?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Nicola Sturgeon, channels the Sheriff from Blazing Saddles.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Give us Soft Brexit or we'll go for indy.

Taking her lead from our PM in that respect, at least

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Nicola Sturgeon, channels the Sheriff from Blazing Saddles.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Give us Soft Brexit or we'll go for indy.

Scotland / England trade with one in, one out could be interesting

Would Scotland be less worse off from an economic point of view sticking with the rest of the UK, even if the UK goes hard Brexit? Genuine question.

yahyah wrote:Sky political correspondent Darren McCaffrey:

''Wondering where Corbyn is ? Well I'm told his 'reboot' as UK Labour leader will happen on Tuesday in a major speech from Essex.''

People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?

Lots of fair criticism that can be made of his leadership, but so much of the bad faith disingenuousness around in the MSM is genuinely wearying.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

yahyah wrote:Sky political correspondent Darren McCaffrey:


Lots of fair criticism that can be made of his [Jeremy Corbyn's] leadership, but so much of the bad faith disingenuousness around in the MSM is genuinely wearying.

As is the man himself.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

yahyah wrote:Sky political correspondent Darren McCaffrey:

''Wondering where Corbyn is ? Well I'm told his 'reboot' as UK Labour leader will happen on Tuesday in a major speech from Essex.''

People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?

Lots of fair criticism that can be made of his leadership, but so much of the bad faith disingenuousness around in the MSM is genuinely wearying.

I want a real leader. One wrapped up in a mickey mouse towel, pointing at fish.

ScarletGas wrote:

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... bles-claim


Southern rail crisis: Grayling backs regulator after 'shambles' claim
Transport secretary denies chief inspector is ‘government place-man’ as union derides report saying driver-only operation is safe

Shocked I tell you shocked!

Chris Grayling taking the side of a privatised company in dispute with a trade union............

No cant believe it.Must be one of the fake news stories! (Satire....I hope)

He's basically taking his own side. The government has ordered driver only operated trains, and the plan is that whoever has the franchise, they'll be running in the future.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jonathan Portes ‏@jdportes Jan 5

So UK labour market will be centrally planned by Whitehall based on sectoral lobbying. What could possibly go wrong?

Portes linked to the story below - 16 December 2016

"An informal information gathering exercise is going on across Whitehall as different departments talk to various sectors
across the economy to piece together a model of what Britain's post-Brexit immigration system might look like...

Government sources confirmed the data collecting exercise, but stressed it was not a formal call for evidence but rather
an attempt to better understand what sort of skills gap the UK will face when the freedom of movement ends.
[O]fficials ...think the public will accept flexibility over numbers...when it comes to critical sectors...
to ensure skills gaps are plugged while British workers are trained to step into those jobs."

http://news.sky.com/story/government-wo ... t-10697547" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(my emphasis)

The future...
People going nowhere and accepting the jobs, working conditions and pay Tory government's landed aristocracy deign to bestow.

StephenDolan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Nicola Sturgeon, channels the Sheriff from Blazing Saddles.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Give us Soft Brexit or we'll go for indy.

Scotland / England trade with one in, one out could be interesting

Would Scotland be less worse off from an economic point of view sticking with the rest of the UK, even if the UK goes hard Brexit? Genuine question.

Whatever happens with Brexit, getting out of the UK and losing the Barnett money will likely be incredibly painful for a while. If she's intending to focus the minds of Kipper Tories, it won't work. Getting out of paying Barnett to Scotland could help paper over any Brexit cracks. They'd probably love it.

StephenDolan wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Simon Jenkins clickbait.

His work has been junk recently.

Recently? The last decent piece was...?

I think I read one a couple years ago wasn't too bad...
Come on, I'm a lefty, compassionate and sh**, you know?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Nicola Sturgeon, channels the Sheriff from Blazing Saddles.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Give us Soft Brexit or we'll go for indy.

Scotland / England trade with one in, one out could be interesting

Would Scotland be less worse off from an economic point of view sticking with the rest of the UK, even if the UK goes hard Brexit? Genuine question.

Whatever happens with Brexit, getting out of the UK and losing the Barnett money will likely be incredibly painful for a while. If she's intending to focus the minds of Kipper Tories, it won't work. Getting out of paying Barnett to Scotland could help paper over any Brexit cracks. They'd probably love it.

I'm guessing most of Scottish businesses trade is with England. Is it possible that it's better for Scotland to stay with England, even if outside the EU because of this?

StephenDolan wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

yahyah wrote:Sky political correspondent Darren McCaffrey:

''Wondering where Corbyn is ? Well I'm told his 'reboot' as UK Labour leader will happen on Tuesday in a major speech from Essex.''

People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?

Lots of fair criticism that can be made of his leadership, but so much of the bad faith disingenuousness around in the MSM is genuinely wearying.

I want a real leader. One wrapped up in a mickey mouse towel, pointing at fish.

How come Tories can get away with that?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Nicola Sturgeon, channels the Sheriff from Blazing Saddles.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Give us Soft Brexit or we'll go for indy.

(cJA edit)

I'm so angry with Tory government, I'd seriously contemplate spending the rest of my life in self-imposed penury rather than give them the satisfaction of imposing it upon me.

StephenDolan wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

StephenDolan wrote: Scotland / England trade with one in, one out could be interesting

Would Scotland be less worse off from an economic point of view sticking with the rest of the UK, even if the UK goes hard Brexit? Genuine question.

Whatever happens with Brexit, getting out of the UK and losing the Barnett money will likely be incredibly painful for a while. If she's intending to focus the minds of Kipper Tories, it won't work. Getting out of paying Barnett to Scotland could help paper over any Brexit cracks. They'd probably love it.

I'm guessing most of Scottish businesses trade is with England. Is it possible that it's better for Scotland to stay with England, even if outside the EU because of this?

I think it probably is better. Among other things, they don't need to grovel to rUk to give them a currency union.

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ter-crisis

Three die at Worcestershire hospital amid NHS winter crisis
One woman reportedly died of heart attack after waiting 35 hours in corridor at ‘extremely busy’ Worcestershire Royal hospital

Tory Headquarters...
'This wouldn't have happened if Labour hadn't created the NHS'

I reached my peak of literary skills about 12.A well argued,thoughtful piece,though a bit brief,emblazoned on a blackboard."Tories are pillocks".Humility forbade me to reveal it was me,though highly suspected of being so,as no witnesses or forensics could categorically prove it,no acclaim nor punishment came my way.
They still are.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: I think it probably is better. Among other things, they don't need to grovel to rUk to give them a currency union.

The EU have (allegedly) ruled out any separate Scottish deal.

The European Union has confirmed to STV News it will not negotiate separately with the Scottish Government over Brexit.
A spokesman for the European Commission, the EU's executive body, made the statement ahead of a meeting between its president Jeane-Claude Juncker and former First Minister Alex Salmond.

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1375290-eu ... -scotland/

IMO, the best option is for the whole of the UK to remain; second best, the whole of the UK out. The idea of separate deals (either trade terms, or immigration rules) is nonsense. It would inevitably result in a closed border between two parts of the UK. (Which is, of course what Sturgeon wants).

There is another little drawback with Scotland's trade links to continental Europe - there are no physical links other than by air. The nearest port is Newcastle!

A separate deal could be great for a smuggling industry in the border towns though.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

ScarletGas wrote:

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... bles-claim


Southern rail crisis: Grayling backs regulator after 'shambles' claim
Transport secretary denies chief inspector is ‘government place-man’ as union derides report saying driver-only operation is safe

Shocked I tell you shocked!

Chris Grayling taking the side of a privatised company in dispute with a trade union............

No cant believe it.Must be one of the fake news stories! (Satire....I hope)

He's basically taking his own side. The government has ordered driver only operated trains, and the plan is that whoever has the franchise, they'll be running in the future.

This is self evident.

I was making a more general point regarding the wearyingly predictable mind-set of Grayling and his ilk.(Note the Satire comment)

Reminds me I've got a reunion of the "casualties of chalk/blackboard dusters throwing"1973-1978,group next week.I'm surprised it never became an Olympic event.

HindleA wrote:Reminds me I've got a reunion of the "casualties of chalk/blackboard dusters throwing"1973-1978,group next week.I'm surprised it never became an Olympic event.

'Get that grape off the floor!'

ScarletGas wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

ScarletGas wrote:
Shocked I tell you shocked!

Chris Grayling taking the side of a privatised company in dispute with a trade union............

No cant believe it.Must be one of the fake news stories! (Satire....I hope)

He's basically taking his own side. The government has ordered driver only operated trains, and the plan is that whoever has the franchise, they'll be running in the future.

This is self evident.

I was making a more general point regarding the wearyingly predictable mind-set of Grayling and his ilk.(Note the Satire comment)

ScotRail has already been through this argument - including strikes and court cases.

ScotRail said it has reached an in-principle agreement with the RMT union to bring to an end a dispute over driver-only trains.

The company said the agreement included a guarantee that a conductor would be retained as the second member of staff on board new trains being rolled out next year.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-4234653

So basically, ScotRail driver-only trains won't be driver-only.

I was quiet,well behaved normally,when I wasn't I got away with perhaps too much by creating laughter,even if unintentionally.

citizenJA wrote:

HindleA wrote:Reminds me I've got a reunion of the "casualties of chalk/blackboard dusters throwing"1973-1978,group next week.I'm surprised it never became an Olympic event.

'Get that grape off the floor!'

I'm not sure it was ever established how said grape happened to get to its position along a narrow school corridor in the first place.

I think we should be told...

Eric_WLothian wrote:

ScarletGas wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: He's basically taking his own side. The government has ordered driver only operated trains, and the plan is that whoever has the franchise, they'll be running in the future.

This is self evident.

I was making a more general point regarding the wearyingly predictable mind-set of Grayling and his ilk.(Note the Satire comment)

ScotRail has already been through this argument - including strikes and court cases.

ScotRail said it has reached an in-principle agreement with the RMT union to bring to an end a dispute over driver-only trains.

The company said the agreement included a guarantee that a conductor would be retained as the second member of staff on board new trains being rolled out next year.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-4234653

So basically, ScotRail driver-only trains won't be driver-only.

That's something that's been suggested here too- the conductor travel on every service but basically in a customer services/ticket inspection role. It looks pretty wasteful to me. And how are they going to help the driver in practice with safety? Just there to help evacuate? How often is that could going to happen?

We really could do rail unions trying to make trains sound like death traps.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

yahyah wrote:Sky political correspondent Darren McCaffrey:

''Wondering where Corbyn is ? Well I'm told his 'reboot' as UK Labour leader will happen on Tuesday in a major speech from Essex.''

People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?

Lots of fair criticism that can be made of his leadership, but so much of the bad faith disingenuousness around in the MSM is genuinely wearying.

<sigh> The reason I posted it was because it says he's doing his 'reboot' [where did that come from, presumably it is a quote from the Labour camp] next week.

Have I said anything about him having a Christmas holiday or criticised him for that ?

He's as entitled to take one as anyone else. Isn't his wife Mexican ? Can't blame them for wanting to visit, particularly if they have caught up with her relatives. Good on them.

It'll be interesting to hear what comes next week. That was why I posted it.

A reboot has been hinted at, a sharper more populist Corbyn. I can only hope that isn't happening.

We've had "no bankers Brexit" but "get EU passporting for the bankers". And "down with corporate subsidy", "up with corporate subsidy".

It'll be a mess, even with a leader who looks the part.

With respect,it was clearly aimed at MSM,whomever that is.



Remember to Laugh.

It wasn't aimed at you yahyah, but those who seem to think his being on holiday during a holiday period is somehow a black mark against him.

As referred to upthread, he still probably takes considerably fewer than the fish pointer did in any case

As long as they don't put a blond hamster wig on Jez.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:That's something that's been suggested here too- the conductor travel on every service but basically in a customer services/ticket inspection role. It looks pretty wasteful to me. And how are they going to help the driver in practice with safety? Just there to help evacuate? How often is that could going to happen?

We really could do rail unions trying to make trains sound like death traps.

(cJA edit)

I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.

I didn't know this. Cornwall has more bus oversight than most places, as is proposed for the City Regions.

http://www.cornwalllive.com/bus-service ... z3hGGd17DB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs wrote: That's something that's been suggested here too- the conductor travel on every service but basically in a customer services/ticket inspection role. It looks pretty wasteful to me. And how are they going to help the driver in practice with safety? Just there to help evacuate? How often is that could going to happen?

We really could do rail unions trying to make trains sound like death traps.

The dispute up here hinged on who operates the doors - driver or guard. If a station has a convex platform, the driver can't see the full length of the train, whereas a guard in the middle can see whether the train is clear and all doors closed. Of course a guard, with responsibility for the safety of the train, is paid more than a conductor who is basically a ticket inspector - hence the attraction from the company's point of view.

Horses for courses, I suppose - if the line has straight platform and/or manned stations, one-man trains seem fine.
edited to add: assuming there are no emergencies or troublemakers on board.

Thanks Anatoly. Am genuinely interested in what he has to say next week.

yahyah wrote:As long as they don't put a blond hamster wig on Jez.

It's something bike riders do to make themselves more conspicuous and therefore less likely to get mowed down by motorists.
Wearing a long blonde wig with thigh-high glossy red boots are better than helmets and shoes for urban bike riding commutes.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: That's something that's been suggested here too- the conductor travel on every service but basically in a customer services/ticket inspection role. It looks pretty wasteful to me. And how are they going to help the driver in practice with safety? Just there to help evacuate? How often is that could going to happen?

We really could do rail unions trying to make trains sound like death traps.

The dispute up here hinged on who operates the doors - driver or guard. If a station has a convex platform, the driver can't see the full length of the train, whereas a guard in the middle can see whether the train is clear and all doors closed. Of course a guard, with responsibility for the safety of the train, is paid more than a conductor who is basically a ticket inspector - hence the attraction from the company's point of view.

Horses for courses, I suppose - if the line has straight platform and/or manned stations, one-man trains seem fine.

Who keeps rude people in order? I weary policing trains for free, especially when I've paid through the nose for a ride.

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:That's something that's been suggested here too- the conductor travel on every service but basically in a customer services/ticket inspection role. It looks pretty wasteful to me. And how are they going to help the driver in practice with safety? Just there to help evacuate? How often is that could going to happen?

We really could do rail unions trying to make trains sound like death traps.

(cJA edit)

I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.

That's a bit different though. It's basically making passengers feel safe from other passengers. Is that needed on all that many routes? It was by no means uniform under BR.

I'm more objecting to the implication that if drivers open doors, then carnage ensues.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:That's something that's been suggested here too- the conductor travel on every service but basically in a customer services/ticket inspection role. It looks pretty wasteful to me. And how are they going to help the driver in practice with safety? Just there to help evacuate? How often is that could going to happen?

We really could do rail unions trying to make trains sound like death traps.

(cJA edit)

I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.

That's a bit different though. It's basically making passengers feel safe from other passengers. Is that needed on all that many routes? It was by no means uniform under BR.

I'm more objecting to the implication that if drivers open doors, then carnage ensues.

If there is trouble or (say) a passenger needing urgent assistance, the only option would be to pull the communication cord and stop the train. Is it worth the potential disruption?

Giant iceberg poised to break off from Antarctic shelf
Predicted to be one of the largest break-offs ever recorded, separation of iceberg could trigger breakup of most northern major ice shelf, Larsen C

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... f-larsen-c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's probably heading straight for us.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: That's something that's been suggested here too- the conductor travel on every service but basically in a customer services/ticket inspection role. It looks pretty wasteful to me. And how are they going to help the driver in practice with safety? Just there to help evacuate? How often is that could going to happen?

We really could do rail unions trying to make trains sound like death traps.

The dispute up here hinged on who operates the doors - driver or guard. If a station has a convex platform, the driver can't see the full length of the train, whereas a guard in the middle can see whether the train is clear and all doors closed. Of course a guard, with responsibility for the safety of the train, is paid more than a conductor who is basically a ticket inspector - hence the attraction from the company's point of view.

Horses for courses, I suppose - if the line has straight platform and/or manned stations, one-man trains seem fine.
edited to add: assuming there are no emergencies or troublemakers on board.

It's the same dispute here- over door operation. Some deal on having more conductors (as opposed to guards) has been mooted as a way out of the dispute. But as you say, the difference in wages makes that hard.

The two regulators (ORR and Safety Board) are both happy with driver only operation. It's not new either.

https://fullfact.org/economy/are-driver ... ains-safe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know whether there's much difference between the new routes proposed like Southern and the ones where it's operated for a long time. Given the shortage of rolling stock now, there might not be. We're probably using guard operated door trains because there's nothing else available.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)

I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.

That's a bit different though. It's basically making passengers feel safe from other passengers. Is that needed on all that many routes? It was by no means uniform under BR.

I'm more objecting to the implication that if drivers open doors, then carnage ensues.

If there is trouble or (say) a passenger needing urgent assistance, the only option would be to pull the communication cord and stop the train. Is it worth the potential disruption?

I've had the misfortune of finding myself on the same train as rowdy people making life unpleasant.

Eric_WLothian wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)

I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.

That's a bit different though. It's basically making passengers feel safe from other passengers. Is that needed on all that many routes? It was by no means uniform under BR.

I'm more objecting to the implication that if drivers open doors, then carnage ensues.

If there is trouble or (say) a passenger needing urgent assistance, the only option would be to pull the communication cord and stop the train. Is it worth the potential disruption?

I assume that would have been considered when the trains were ordered, but I don't know.

Jamie Oliver to close six restaurants in 'tough market' after Brexit vote
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-barbecoa[/quote]

Having safety and/or customer service personnel available on public transport is important to me because too many times people have been uncomfortable, in distress from other passengers conduct and/or been without guidance. Relying upon the kindness of fellow travellers is an unacceptable way to provide a public service.

The Editor of Rail Magazine. Overwhelmingly sympathetic to Southern (ie the government, in effect). But interesting details, and should be reliable on them.

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/rail-f ... nd-threats" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA wrote:Having safety and/or customer service personnel available on public transport is important to me because too many times people have been uncomfortable, in distress from other passengers conduct and/or been without guidance. Relying upon the kindness of fellow travellers is an unacceptable way to provide a public service.

Where there are regular problems, that should definitely happen, but it's expensive to do all over. In safety terms, how does that compare with eg improving level crossings? I know train companies and Network Rail are separate, but there'll be a connection between what the train company bid and how much money the government gives to Network Rail.

I'm just glad it's not up to me.

Apparently a French presidential poll has just put le fash Le Pen in third place. Its still quite close, but have the events of 2016 made it harder rather than easier for her to win?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Apparently a French presidential poll has just put le fash Le Pen in third place. Its still quite close, but have the events of 2016 made it harder rather than easier for her to win?

She's panicking. Dropped leaving the EU and Euro. Where that leaves the protectionism that was central to her economic policy, God knows. She's also got money problems.

Wouldn't be surprised if she came 3rd, maybe with some "proper Kipper" taking some votes.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Having safety and/or customer service personnel available on public transport is important to me because too many times people have been uncomfortable, in distress from other passengers conduct and/or been without guidance. Relying upon the kindness of fellow travellers is an unacceptable way to provide a public service.

Where there are regular problems, that should definitely happen, but it's expensive to do all over. In safety terms, how does that compare with eg improving level crossings? I know train companies and Network Rail are separate, but there'll be a connection between what the train company bid and how much money the government gives to Network Rail.

I'm just glad it's not up to me.

The cost of not having enough staff for safety purposes is too high. Please know I don't think it's good employing people
just to have them sit or stand around. I don't want to stop technological changes improving the quality of peoples' lives.

What I know about work...there's more work needing doing than there are hours in the day.

Reading a social care article linked somewhere here recently, I think it was the Swedish care workers experiment.
Care workers working a 6-hour day had less sickness and required less time away from work than co-workers doing
an 8-hour day. A care worker was quoted as saying she wasn't as exhausted at the end of her day. That's great.

Her care working duties didn't include taking anyone for a walk and chat. I found this out because she was happy
to spend time doing just that after her working day was done. I don't know the job description of this person.
Maybe there was a good reason for this not being part of her duties. The person she was caring for could also
be a friend.

It's not how I worked when I was a care worker.

The people I cared for employed me. When our work together was done, I went home. The work I did kept
them alive and able to remain in their home safely. Part of my work would be walking and talking with those
I cared for. I'd watch and listen and be able to communicate and advocate on their behalf. I could see if they'd
developed range of motion limitations. I heard them ask the same question repeatedly having already given them
an answer. I was working for and with them. All the time I was with them, I was on duty. Hospital and healthcare
staff would liaise with me to keep the people we worked for and with healthier and safer.

I did more than walk and talk with the people I cared for. There's a lot of work to be done caring for someone alone
and not able to safely navigate their way through life for one reason or another.

There are as many jobs and work than there are people. It's the way life is.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Apparently a French presidential poll has just put le fash Le Pen in third place. Its still quite close, but have the events of 2016 made it harder rather than easier for her to win?

She's panicking. Dropped leaving the EU and Euro. Where that leaves the protectionism that was central to her economic policy, God knows. She's also got money problems.

Wouldn't be surprised if she came 3rd, maybe with some "proper Kipper" taking some votes.

That's excellent news.