Politics of (Rail) Transport

Back in October 2008 I posted an Article on: High Speed Trains and Heathrows Third Runway which ended with:
Transport is too important nationally to be a political football. We have wasted at least 40 years, please, don't waste the next 40!

In France where there appears a separation between National Interest and Party Politics so lacking in Britain, there has been a consistent integrated National Transport Policy, especially in regard to High Speed Rail for 40 Years. So the recent British political consensus on the need for High Speed Rail links and this cross-political support for some major projects has been a welcome 'chink of light'. One project that seemed to be a beneficiary of this welcome change is the planned High Speed Link between London and the Midlands (part of a longer term plan: New high-speed rail plan unveiled BBC August 2009), which has been around for at least 5 years.

The Conservatives have broken the Political consensus on this project by commissioning their own panel of experts to look over the proposals, which were drawn up by High Speed Two, a public company. Now this panel has not yet issued its final report to its Conservative paymasters (gosh I thought all the parties were short of cash), but as part of the cross-party consensus the Labour Government offered the Conservative Opposition a preview of the forthcoming White Paper on the project and they refused.

The question is why chose this project?

Well Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary has decided to take the risk of alarming potential Labour voters by publishing a detailed London-to-Birmingham proposal in the white paper that locates the tracks to within five metres in urban areas and 25 metres in the countryside. Note: How refreshing a Government Whitepaper that actually details what is really planned.

But endorsing such a tightly planned route could spell even more trouble for the Tories as well because it is widely expected to slice through the Conservative heartland of Buckinghamshire, including a swath of the Chiltern Hills - one of 40 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales.

So the Guardian found a 'talkative Tory party source' who:
Acknowledged concerns that the route could go through key constituencies between the home counties and the West Midlands, triggering complaints about property blight from house owners. "We don't want to lose 10 seats backing a route blindly," said the source - Hmm also honest, but depressingly so. It's all about Party Politics and s*d the National Interest!

So there we have it National Interest No, Party Politics Yes and what I saw as a 'chink of light' that possibly would burn brighter by encompassing other National Projects has just been shut off.

For the Conservative Party this 'strategy' appears to have backfired (as it deserved to) as the both the Government and the Lib-Dems have been able to take the moral high ground:
First Norman Baker for the Lib-Dems talking to the BBC:
"This peculiar decision of the Tories coupled with Osborne's spending cuts strongly suggest that the Tories are trying to kick high-speed rail into the long grass." "The Tories can't be trusted with our railways."
Nasty little political kicker at the end there Norman and you were doing so well!

Now Lord Adonis:
"Full public consultation will of course take place on any route proposed by the government. The consensus I seek is on the principle of high-speed rail, so that it can be taken forward on a cross-party basis in the next parliament."

Amusingly since the Conservative announcement yesterday, the Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers has had to spend most of her time defending the Conservative line by denying they were "playing politics".
Sorry but you were!

As the General Election begins to looms, who to vote for:
Labour, Conservative, or Lib Dems - In each party there are a few (too few) with talent, a few (even fewer) I respect (and not always the same people), but actually the thought of any of these parties forming the next Government is for me depressing and the stuff of nightmares..

Links:
Department of Transport Britain's Transport Infrastructure: High Speed Two
January 2009 - Warning 5Mb PDF - Very Interesting

From the Newspapers
18th February:
Guardian:-Tory fears of vote backlash put high-speed rail route in doubt
19th February:
Telegraph:- High-speed rail route 'under threat' as Tories refuse to support Labour's proposals

Times:-Tories put high-speed rail line in doubt

A Bit of History Courtesy of the BBC:
Why put the brakes on high-speed rail?

The Politicians:
Lord Andrew Adonis:
Department of Transport Profile ,the Telegraph Profile and Wikipedia Entry

Theresa Villiers:
Official Website - Conservative Party Site and Wikipedia Entry

Norman Baker:
Official Website - Profile On Norman Clegg's Site and Wikipedia Entry

Guido Fawkes an Article: Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Whilst the Guido Fawkes Blog is largely read by Politicians, Lawyers and City Movers & Shakers, (not always with enjoyment - Hazel Blears in a speech described it as the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes), some of his articles should receive a wider audience. The following is an entire post made on the 6th January 2010:

Start Guido Fawkes Post:

Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Here is another evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wants to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett.  He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching.  Guido questions how he can be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations.  In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan, takes home £17,004 for risking his life.  If that private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets.

Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers?  Is Choudary really actively seeking work?  The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits…

END of Guido Fawkes Post

Devaluing the Award of British Medals.

Britain has a tradition of awarding medals for displays of exceptional Courage, in the Armed Services (In the Army, one regiment will submit a request for an award, but another for exactly the same act will not, considering it within expected behaviour of members of that Regiment), the Police and Civilian Population. Getting an award in the Security Services, SIS (aka MI 6), or MI 5, is shall we say 'difficult', for serving officers 'extremely difficult'.

In the Armed Services there are also Campaign Medals for those who served in War Zones, although HMG has on some occasions tried to avoid awarding these for political reasons (e.g. the long campaign to recognise Suez Veterans), or diplomatic reasons (we were never there, honest). Even worse HMG (on the advice of the MoD) is refusing to give a medal to those wounded in action in Afghanistan, or elsewhere.

In my long professional career I have visited Countries and Cities in Countries which HM Foreign Office at the time considered unsafe. In some cases so unsafe that I and my Colleagues received protection. I viewed these visits as the risky part of my job at the time, not something to be given some award for although I did usually get paid something extra for being there and then only if staying for more than a couple of days!

Now as part of their job, Politicians and now Civil Servants are required to visit War Zones, or Countries/Cities Deemed High Risk. It comes with the territory, don't want to do it refuse, or change careers!
I have no problem with a plus payment for doing it, starting say, for stays longer than a week, but regardless of how many flying visits, no!

Yet Politicians who have neither served with the Armed Services, Police, Security Services and whose only likelihood of exceptional bravery in their professional life would to be to face Jeremy Paxman at the top of his form are being awarded Medals. Oh yes and what have they done to be so recognised?

Well they have to be members of a Club, sorry I mean Scheme, called the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS), and this scheme allows politicians to spend around 22 days a year with the Forces. So visits to Aldershot, an RN Ship, or RAF Base in Scotland all count. - Of course some do visit a War Zone where they were constantly surrounded by real British Soldiers and have had their Pictures taken, been interviewed and have then gone home. Fortunately the Queen does not have to present these Badges, because they are technically unofficial. So should they be called Medals, no, they are just a Badge showing long term (10 Years) club, sorry scheme membership.

So why are these called Medals, when they are only a Badge, because they are awarded to Politicians (vomiting at this point is permitted). At least if you are British Citizen you can indicate your anger at this by signing an E-Petition to the Prime Minister: Stop degrading our soldiers by handing out medals to MPs.

Well I have received Certificates for belonging to something for a long while, but quite honestly these go in the scrap book and even the Badges I have been given for membership of an Organisation, would only be worn (if I remembered), on occasions when it is likely to encounter other members.

Having dealt with Politicians, let us look at the Civil Service. In particular the MoD where Civil Servants are traditionally niggardly when recommending Medals for real Heroes and Service in Campaigns. Well guess what now they are actually expected to spend time in a War Zone they are getting a Campaign Medal, no, not a Badge, a real Campaign Medal as worn by Real Soldiers, Royal Marines and the RAF Personnel (providing they spend as certain amount of time there and this varies between 21 and 30 Days not the six month tours of real Soldiers and other Service Personnel). So are these people on the front line? No don't be silly, they work mainly inside Camp Bastion surrounded by Real Servicemen and Women and when they venture out they are very well protected. Also they get Bonus payments and salaries which make the real Heroes amongst the most underpaid in our society.

So they are, Civilians in a War Zone where it is just possible they might get Killed (None has), or Wounded (no medal for being wounded remember - MoD didn't go for it), well the Naafi Manager does that as do the other Civilians, are they going to be awarded a Campaign Medal? Again don't be silly and they don't expect it, yet in other wars Naafi Staff have taken the fight to enemy (Falklands) and from memory they didn't get a medal, neither do Chinese Civilian Laundrymen who serve on Royal Navy Ships and have died alongside the British Crew in wars large and small. So what is special about Civil Servants that means they deserve a medal! NOTHING!

The awards to MPs and Civil Servants devalues the British Medal Award System which is moving the way of the former USSR, where you got a medal for just staying Alive for a very long time in the Soviet Paradise, contributing to the Population Explosion, or being a Sycophant to the right people, among many other possibilities.

Links:
E-Petiion to the Prime Minister: Stop degrading our soldiers by handing out medals to MPs.

MPs criticised for accepting 'Mickey Mouse' medals

Anger as penpushers at MoD get same Afghan medal as troops risking their lives on front line

To finish a picture of Real Soldiers, just to remind us of those who deserve much more than we give them and who are entitled to Wear their Medals with Pride:

Online petition against HM Government use of Flawed browser

After reading the following please sign the E-Petition
The German and French governments have started to encourage people to upgrade away from the browser Internet Explorer 6 (IE6).

IE6 has some security flaws that leave users vulnerable. These two governments have let their populations know that an upgrade will keep them safer online. We should follow them.

When the UK government does this, most of Europe will follow. That will create some pressure on the US to do so too.

Most creative and software development companies are forced by government department clients to build websites for IE6 when most of the industry has moved on.

Companies insist that they need IE6 support because government departments use it and won't be able to see their sites or services without it.

Upgrading would be a massive task for government, but if the public is encouraged to lead the way and the government follows, that would create the momentum needed.

IE6 'end of life' was extended to 2014 by governments and business not ready (or willing) to upgrade. This cycle should be broken and innovation and security given their proper place.

To sign click: E-Petition