Speedfit technique

[Andy Hall]

The world has moved on from the kind of ideology that you hanker after. Get over it.

If you look at any economy where the state has or has had a major involvement in ownership and running of a large part, it has failed miserably or continues to fail miserably.

You only have to look at the former Warsaw Pact countries to see the enormous improvements in quality of life as inward investment picks up following the demise of the state controlling everything.

...

I think that you have muddled thinking here. There is no logical reason at all why the state should not purchase services from organisations outside its direct ownership.

Oh please.

[Owain]

":::Jerry::::" wrote | > Yes, they're so much better. Cleaner, more frequent, trains, | > new stations and lines being opened, | Sorry, but would you care to name a 'new station' or line, | apart from those involved with the CTRL's...

I don't know what a CTRL is, but Camelon and Edinburgh Park stations have both opened on the Edinburgh-Dunblane line. In Hampshire, Chandler's Ford station has re-opened. The Stirling-Alloa railway line will reopen, the Scottish Borders line will probably re-open.

| Time tables are either the same or have been cut back, other than | on lines that have had recent (state) investment.

Birmingham-Aberystwyth services now run on Sundays; previously there were NO Sunday trains at all. Edinburgh-Glasgow shuttle services now run every 15 minutes.

| But incompetence at higher levels are even worse, in BR times trains | were held so that connections were kept, now a train could run empty | because otherwise someone is fined - what's the point of running an | empty train on time and leaving 'customers' stranded ? Yes it's the | extreme end of the argument but so is yours.

I don't see how a train would run completely empty because of a delayed incoming service, unless there is *no* local custom, and with services on most parts of the network being hourly or half hourly a missed connection should not cause too great inconvenience. The answer is to run more trains on time, which is generally happening. Holding a train back for an incoming connection means that people on the held train are delayed instead, and means that trains cannot keep to their timetabled paths on the network, cascading problems.

| > Scottish customers pay more for their water and sewerage from the | > nationalised Scottish Water than customers of the private sector | > down south. | Just because it's still in state ownership or because the service | costs more to run ?

No incentive in the public sector to meet customer needs or operate competitively. Tesco can deliver as much shopping as I want within a two-hour time slot of my choice for half the price the local council charge to come and collect non-bin rubbish.

Owain

[:::Jerry::::]

I was thinking more in terms of 'Humble'...

[:::Jerry::::]

Stop showing off how little you know ! Do some basic research on flight paths....

[IMM]

Did some work once on ILS: localisers, glide slope, etc. You see I am brill at everything.

[IMM]

locomotives

I just read this and it is appalling; I can see why Jerry expeleted. No idea whatsoever. No idea. Sad but true.

[Huge]

Troo. I haven't been to the Left Side for a couple of years.

*grin* Funnily enough, that's just come up on a mailing list I'm on.

[Huge]

IME (which is sadly considerable in recent years) this must be rare, since neither of my parents have had to share a room with someone of another sex.

[Pete C]

It was given by Alan Milburn as an arbritary estimate, but a look at what is being debated is more revealing. Essentially the Govt believes that lower waiting times means less deaths. However in reality this may mean more urgent cases are being deferred in order that less urgent cases are being treated within the maximum waiting time:

--------------

Mr. Milburn: I can give the hon. Gentleman a concrete example. It is estimated that 500 patients die every year waiting for a heart operation in the NHS. The shorter the waiting time, the fewer people die. That has come about precisely because of setting a target, focusing effort and getting the good will and commitment of NHS staff. That is why, after 40 years of rising waiting times in the NHS, waiting times are starting to fall, with improved outcomes for patients.

Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for choosing cardiology. He should know that the people who die while waiting for their procedure are the urgent cases?those with critical ischaemia, left main-stem disease or severe valvular disease. Clear evidence is emerging that people with those urgent conditions are being forced to wait longer. Instead of waiting for only days, they have to wait for weeks because so many slots have been given over to less urgent cases, the long waiters who also need to be treated but who are political rather than clinical priorities. I can cite for the right hon. Gentleman cardiologists up and down the country who know that their patients are now more at risk due to his maximal waiting-time target. Surely, it is straightforward for the right hon. Gentleman to see that the sickest are not being treated the quickest, because his maximum waiting time targets apply only to the least urgent cases. He must accept that there is a distortion of clinical priorities, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) should realise that one can have quality inspection and quality standards without distorting either resource allocation or clinical priorities. That is what we want, not the political targets imposed on hospitals.

-----------

URL:

In any case quoting a statistic without any context is sometimes misleading.

cheers, Pete.

[raden]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Talking about off air ...

Does anyone know why I get BBC news 24 24 hours a day on my NTL box, but not during the day on my freeview box ?

[IMM]

Maxie, which is the best reception? Calble or Freeview?

[:::Jerry::::]

Well, you would personally know all about that, no doubt...

[:::Jerry::::]

You didn't learn much then, perhaps that's why you only did it once !...

[IMM]

Well you gave the assessment not me.

[IMM]

Many number of times my good man.

[:::Jerry::::]

That's not what you said above.... Ho hum, which version should we believe ?...

[Capitol]

Hmm. Observant!

Regards Capitol

[IMM]

very.

[John Rumm]

The usual triumph of spin over substance (or in fact lives in this case).

Agreed, however for the purposes of the discussion in hand, it did not seem that relevant, or more likely, would most likely only serve to divert the discussion into ever new areas for claim and counter claim.

[:::Jerry::::]

And practised by all parties of what ever colour, politics having become more about PR than policies in the last 25 years or so, why else do they employ advertising and PR guru's....

John Hummphy's, like him or not, does have a point about the babble that is now spoken by politicians.