Let's Worry The Country about 2020

[Neil Jones]

I find it astonishing some of the things they are saying now. There is no honesty at all. Yesterdays crime figures were bad news. Yet I hear a female MP saying that if you calculate another way - 'A much better way' - they look better. Now that's hardly the point, surely?

Indeed, take the unemployment figures. What is it now, 850k something like that? All that's happened is you go onto New Deal, you spend the next 4 months hidden up the back of the jobcentre every week and the next 12 months after that in some stuffy residence under the guise of "training, help and assistance". In reality there's sod all decent training (contracted out), sod all help and sod all assistance. Meanwhile you're classed as employed through this entire charade. Repeat again nine months later. Easy way to take 250k and more off the list and bleat "full employment for all".

I'm sure the same sort of charade or anything happens in other departments when the figures go. As an example, take the tests at 7, 11 and 14. This is a guise to argue that standards are improving. The reality is that the kids aren't actually learning anything, just cramming for the tests so the school looks good in the league tables. Which also goes some way to explain why still great chunks of kids leave school without basic literacy and numeracy despite material laid out to the contrary in abour's 1997 manifesto.

There are other examples but I'll leave it there.

Blair was listing his achievements in a triumphant tone a couple of days ago. Yet half of them were irrelivant. "More Nurses!" he shouted. Sounds good, but the detail is that Health is still in a sorry state. It's a pretty empty boast, so why bother?

More nurses yes but ironic that they're not british nurses isn't it? They've imported a lot as a short-term solution.

Transport is ridiculous. Finding money for the Olympics is a real kick in the face. I've also found their behaviour and demenour following the Hutton and Butler reports awful.

Trouble is, the problem isn't just this government, it's politics as a whole.

London 2012 was never going to be a starter, I mean you only have to listen to the radio in the morning to hear the stories of gridlock on the M6 and tailbacks to Junction 4, overturned lorries and so on and so forth. We can't cope now with all these people who live in the UK now so how on earth are we going to cope if every man and his dog invades London and wherever in 2012? Although Toll Roads might help the situation, it's not going to be very popular.

[DJGM]

For me, the sooner this POS gov't are voted out, the better. Especially after this week's decision to
scrap funding to expand Manchester's Metrolink tram system. £200 million has already been spent
on preparing the relevant areas for the new tracks and stations. Metrolink was expecting to get
another £520 million of gov't funding for the actual expansion work itself.

The gov't promised this funding a few years ago, and has now completely reneged on the deal.

And what reason does the gov't give for scrapping Metrolink's expansion funding? Escalating costs,
they say. On the surface, that seems like a sensible reason. But, in almost the same breath, they
have announced that the proposed London "CrossRail" project will receive £10 BILLION of public
money. IMO, that decision is absolutly f***ing disgusting, and it makes the transport secretary
little more than a two faced toerag, and must resign from his post with immediate effect . . .

[nwtv2003]

For me, the sooner this POS gov't are voted out, the better. Especially after this week's decision to
scrap funding to expand Manchester's Metrolink tram system. £200 million has already been spent
on preparing the relevant areas for the new tracks and stations. Metrolink was expecting to get
another £520 million of gov't funding for the actual expansion work itself.

The gov't promised this funding a few years ago, and has now completely reneged on the deal.

And what reason does the gov't give for scrapping Metrolink's expansion funding? Escalating costs,
they say. On the surface, that seems like a sensible reason. But, in almost the same breath, they
have announced that the proposed London "CrossRail" project will receive £10 BILLION of public
money. IMO, that decision is absolutly f***ing disgusting, and it makes the transport secretary
little more than a two faced toerag, and must resign from his post with immediate effect . . .

I saw it on Granada News and I can see why and how angry the people of Manchester feel about it, I don't live in the Greater Manchester area, but Metrolink is probably the best public transport service in the area and they always had plans for expansions, as 2 or 3 lines isn't enough for the whole area. Manchester City Council are quite pissed off about it, as they've already started construction, they are trying to reverse the decision. But it is annoying when

1) The government promised the money anyway
2) And the government comitting billions of pounds to a crosslink thing in London, where they already have an excellent reliable tube service and buses often as seconds, where as Manchester doesn't.

I know its only a tram expansion, but it is important for the people of Manchester for encouarging people to use public transport and what happens? More people will use cars, the daft twats. They should have at least gave the expansion for the Manchester Airport link!!

[Ed Hammond]

2) And the government comitting billions of pounds to a crosslink thing in London, where they already have an excellent reliable tube service and buses often as seconds, where as Manchester doesn't.

Not being travelling in London much recently, clearly!

London does need Crossrail, but Manchester needs Metrolink as well. Personally, I don't see where the difficulty would lie in being able to pay for both. Whenever I hear government spokesmen saying that there isn't enough money to do something, I always recall that Norman Lamont spent £14 billion in two days trying to prop up the pound in the ERM in 1992, money that went straight down the plughole. And there always seem to be enough money to change the terms of reference and logos of government departments every six months or so. And enough money to send a never-ending stream of housing and council tax benefit circulars to local councils, which muggins here has to log and file, despite the fact that the last one was a three page memo correcting a minor typesetting error in a previous circular. Christ.

Everyone at the council is very keen about the Olympics at the moment and we're even having a meeting about it next week.

[cwathen]

London does need Crossrail, but Manchester needs Metrolink as well. Personally, I don't see where the difficulty would lie in being able to pay for both. Whenever I hear government spokesmen saying that there isn't enough money to do something, I always recall that Norman Lamont spent £14 billion in two days trying to prop up the pound in the ERM in 1992, money that went straight down the plughole. And there always seem to be enough money to change the terms of reference and logos of government departments every six months or so. And enough money to send a never-ending stream of housing and council tax benefit circulars to local councils, which muggins here has to log and file, despite the fact that the last one was a three page memo correcting a minor typesetting error in a previous circular. Christ.

Everyone at the council is very keen about the Olympics at the moment and we're even having a meeting about it next week.

Now see this is what annoys me. I'm not going to make the usual arguments about money being spent on the Iraq war, because whilst I don't personally agree with it, there is the point of view that military spending is necessary.

But what I do get annoyed about is the amount of money spent on what I can only see as frivolous non essentials, whilst essential services are told that there is no money available.

How much money is Britain spending on it's olympic bid? How much did it spend on the dome? Both are examples of money which might as well have been burned - Britain will never win the olympic bid, and the dome, which started life as an area of swampland, is all set to return that way. Wouldn't this countless billions have been better going into hospitals or schools, or going into improving our atrocious public transport system?

It really pisses me off when the government announce a few hundred million in funding for essential services and act like it's some sort of funding breakthrough but will quietly divert billions into what are, at the end of the day, uncessary bits of willy waving which should not have happened given the chronic underfunding and overtaxation which goes on in this country.

Really, considering the percentage of the average person's income which is paid in various forms of tax each year, Britain should have pretty much the best of everything. But it doesn't.

As much as I've always been somewhat travel-shy, I'm rapidly considering the possibilities of quitting this country at some point in the not too distant future.

[malcyb]

I guess you don't like flowers and shrubbery on roundabouts then Chris?

[Chris]

The government has spent £8m on a 22 page 2004 'Protect and survive' type booklet which gives general advice in the event of an emergency which is to be distributed to every household in the country.

From the copy I've seen on their website, the information given is mainly common sense and is pretty vague - the message from the leaflet seems to be 'go in, stay in, tune in' accompanied with some stylised coloured icons of a arrow pointing towards the right, a keyhole and what looks like a radio knob unlike the US government's pictures (and humourous interpretation of them).



Do you think it's a waste of money, or useful advice in preparation for a terrorist attack

[Still]

I don't think anyone wil bother reading it.

I certainly wouldn't. Unless Terrorist target number one is rural Suffolk.

[cwathen]

Do you think it's a waste of money, or useful advice in preparation for a terrorist attack

It's an interesting change in tactic from Protect and Survive. P&S was largely kept under wraps; public information films were made but not shown, newspaper articles were layed up but never printer, copies of the main P&S leaflet were stockpiled but never distributed. The only circulation of the campaign at the time was when the Protect and Survive leaflet, along with some other CND leaflets, were placed on sale in Post Offices and the like for particularly interested people to see early.

In contrast, this one is in the news, has booked commercial airtime today (although it apparently won't be shown until this evening, it was on ITV first thing this morning), and the leaflets will be distributed now.

[Neil Jones]

The government has spent £8m on a 22 page 2004 'Protect and survive' type booklet which gives general advice in the event of an emergency which is to be distributed to every household in the country.

From the copy I've seen on their website, the information given is mainly common sense and is pretty vague - the message from the leaflet seems to be 'go in, stay in, tune in' accompanied with some stylised coloured icons of a arrow pointing towards the right, a keyhole and what looks like a radio knob unlike the US government's pictures (and humourous interpretation of them).

Do you think it's a waste of money, or useful advice in preparation for a terrorist attack

Complete and utter waste of money. You might as well send out single page pamphlets telling people to wipe their arse after using the toilet and flag it up as an "improving public health starts at home" campaign.

Most of what's claimed to be in this leaflet (a lot of which, I reckon, will get lost in the post) is common sense, see here. How many are going to go "ooh, a chemical attack, that's nice, lets get out that leaflet"? Not many I suspect.

As one gentleman said on BBC News Online: "The government needs to say why it is sending the booklet out so it doesn't get treated as junk mail or election material and get thrown away. That would be money squandered. ... I'm not sure if an extra can of beans and a torch will save me against a terrorist attack."

[johnnyboy]

It's an interesting change in tactic from Protect and Survive. P&S was largely kept under wraps; public information films were made but not shown, newspaper articles were layed up but never printer, copies of the main P&S leaflet were stockpiled but never distributed. The only circulation of the campaign at the time was when the Protect and Survive leaflet, along with some other CND leaflets, were placed on sale in Post Offices and the like for particularly interested people to see early.

In contrast, this one is in the news, has booked commercial airtime today (although it apparently won't be shown until this evening, it was on ITV first thing this morning), and the leaflets will be distributed now.

Well, Tony has to scare us shitless in order to get us to invade Iran after the US presidential elections.

So, tacticly, a fine move for the intellectual and moral douchebag that is our esteemed leader.