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
Recently? The last decent piece was...?citizenJA wrote:His work has been junk recently.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Simon Jenkins clickbait.
Taking her lead from our PM in that respect, at leastTubby 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 interestingTubby 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.
People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?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.''
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.
I want a real leader. One wrapped up in a mickey mouse towel, pointing at fish.AnatolyKasparov wrote:People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?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.''
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.
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.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)
Portes linked to the story below - 16 December 2016Tubby 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?
(my emphasis)"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;
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:Scotland / England trade with one in, one out could be interestingTubby 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.
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.
I think I read one a couple years ago wasn't too bad...StephenDolan wrote:Recently? The last decent piece was...?citizenJA wrote:His work has been junk recently.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Simon Jenkins clickbait.
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?Tubby Isaacs wrote: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:Scotland / England trade with one in, one out could be interestingTubby 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.
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.
How come Tories can get away with that?StephenDolan wrote:I want a real leader. One wrapped up in a mickey mouse towel, pointing at fish.AnatolyKasparov wrote:People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?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.''
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.
(cJA edit)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.
I think it probably is better. Among other things, they don't need to grovel to rUk to give them a currency union.StephenDolan wrote: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?Tubby Isaacs wrote: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: 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.
Tory Headquarters...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
The EU have (allegedly) ruled out any separate Scottish deal.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.
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1375290-eu ... -scotland/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.
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.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)
'Get that grape off the floor!'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.
ScotRail has already been through this argument - including strikes and court cases.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.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)
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)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-4234653ScotRail 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.
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.citizenJA wrote:'Get that grape off the floor!'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.
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?Eric_WLothian wrote:ScotRail has already been through this argument - including strikes and court cases.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)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/ ... -1-4234653ScotRail 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.
So basically, ScotRail driver-only trains won't be driver-only.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:People asking "where is Jez" when parliament doesn't return until next week - he is on holiday this week, is that really so odd?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.''
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.
(cJA edit)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.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.
It's something bike riders do to make themselves more conspicuous and therefore less likely to get mowed down by motorists.yahyah wrote:As long as they don't put a blond hamster wig on Jez.
Who keeps rude people in order? I weary policing trains for free, especially when I've paid through the nose for a ride.Eric_WLothian wrote: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.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.
Horses for courses, I suppose - if the line has straight platform and/or manned stations, one-man trains seem fine.
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.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)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.
I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.
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?Tubby Isaacs wrote: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.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)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.
I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.
I'm more objecting to the implication that if drivers open doors, then carnage ensues.
It's probably heading straight for us.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 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.Eric_WLothian wrote: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.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.
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.
I've had the misfortune of finding myself on the same train as rowdy people making life unpleasant.Eric_WLothian wrote: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?Tubby Isaacs wrote: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.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)
I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.
I'm more objecting to the implication that if drivers open doors, then carnage ensues.
I assume that would have been considered when the trains were ordered, but I don't know.Eric_WLothian wrote: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?Tubby Isaacs wrote: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.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)
I'm more comfortable with visible public transport personnel on the train along with the driver.
I'm more objecting to the implication that if drivers open doors, then carnage ensues.
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.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.
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.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?
The cost of not having enough staff for safety purposes is too high. Please know I don't think it's good employing peopleTubby Isaacs wrote: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.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.
I'm just glad it's not up to me.
That's excellent news.Tubby Isaacs wrote: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.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?
Wouldn't be surprised if she came 3rd, maybe with some "proper Kipper" taking some votes.
