Railways are a complex issue. For example, privatisation actually reversed the decline in railway usage. Unfortunately it also destroyed a culture of best safety practice, and more or less killed off any hope of an integrated approach to running the network.

A heavily-regulated network operator and a small number of private service operators might have been more effective.

The sleaze/spin points are interesting.

With the tories you had sleaze; sleeping around, dodgy dealings, that sort of thing.
With labour you've got spin; Comical Ali really. We're in trouble but they tell us everything is fine etc, basically the gov lying to the people.

I think people are waking up to the spin, and realising that although sleaze was bad, it didn't mean the gov was lying to you about important things, like how much money they are taking from your salary.
A MP sleeping with his secretary is just gossip to most people, but the gov lying to them is becoming unacceptable

I agree

Funny how what seemed the worst scandal ever at the time can suddenly seem trivial and silly. Which is worse - David Mellor getting frisky in a Chelsea strip or a press officer chairing a committee of spies? :disturbd:

Interesting you should say that, because a couple of years ago, I listened to Max Clifford (who leaked the story and acted as Antonia de Sanchez's agent), who said that he was hired by the then goverment to leak the story because they were up to something that they didn't want the press to find out about.

Having said that, Max Clifford is just about the biggest Liar I have ever seen, so I don't know if that is actually true.

I think its about time Mr Blair introduced the regional assemblies we so desperately need in the North East.
If theres money coming into this region form central government they wanna sign post where its getting spent at, cos there simply is no sign of it anywhere.

I think you should be concerned that if Blair does introduce a regional assembly for the North East, a lot of the money going into your area will be spent on running the assembly. Just think of all those expense accounts ... are you sure you will get value for money out of yet another tier of local government?

At the moment there are too many tiers of government which are costing the country a fortune.

What we need is better local representation with the people and the MPs which are affected by changes having a greater say in what goes on.

The regional assembly idea is just a diversion, an attempt to shift the accountability for some †œdifficultà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Ã⠀šÃ‚Â� topics away from central government.

The people elected to these bodies would have no real power and we would have to pay their salaries.

If we get them, or not, it wonââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t make any difference.

This government, like the one before it has now been in power too long. They have forgotten that they serve the people of the country. Tony Blair thinks it is the other way around, time he went.

It is not like supporting a football team, once they stop doing what we want, fail do what they promised, boot them out at the next election. The same goes for the next administration, when they find themselves out of a job every 4 years or so they will soon start to do what they are supposed to do, that is, look after the interests of the people of this country. Makes little difference which party, just as long as the electorate calls the shots.

Soapbox mode off.

If there is a NE assembly I have never heard of it, never seen it and dont know of anythign it does.
I must admit that I dont think we do have one, we have local government, we have a lot of local councils. But as far as I have seen/heard and experienced No regional assembly. We are currently campaigning for one, so I expect that also means there isnt one already.

What I think you'll have, which we have here, is a Regional Development Council (I think that's what they're called) which is unelected (a Quango) but has a large say in how money is invested in the region. I think that's what's meant by a NE assembly.

I tend to agree that a local, elected, assembly is just a way of shifting responsibility from central government. An elected assembly, however, may be better than an unelected one. The problem I have is the area they'll cover.

The proposed one for the NW will cover, as far as I know, an area that runs from the Scottish border all the way down to at least Manchester and possibly beyond. How's that local?

As for national government, can anyone tell me what the Conservative's policies on anything actually are? And how they differ from those of the current Labour government?

Yes, that's how it works at the moment. It's democratic only to the extent that councillors from each district within the RDC's patch sit on the council. The assemblies have a limited remit and do little that grabs headlines so they generally go unnoticed.

I agree. When I lived in the Wirral our complaint was always that a council largely dominated by the Labour-voting east Wirral (Birkenhead and Wallasey) had little interest in generally Tory-voting west Wirral (Heswall, West Kirby and Hoylake). There was even a campaign, at on stage, to split the borough in two. So how transferring some of Wirral council's powers to Manchester is supposed to improve things, I have no idea.

The Tories have deliberately refused to be rushed into policy announcements since the last election but some of the ones they have made and that come to mind are:

Scrapping University tuition fees
Making greater use of private hospital beds by paying towards the bills of people who choose to go private and get off an NHS waiting list
Overhaul of the tests-and-targets culture in schools

There are others but it's late and I'm tired... sure their website might say more, although I've not looked myself: www.conservatives.com

EDIT - I am not 'a Tory', but I consider myself to be politically open-minded. If one lot don't deliver, try the other lot. Except don't touch the traitorous Lib Dems with a barge-pole.;)

Why do you describe the Lib Dems as traitorous?

They are the only party so far that haven't contributed to the parlous state in which we find ourselves.

I was referring back to a post I made earlier in the thread:

Granted they have not contributed to the modern United Kingdom; my fear is that there will be no recognisable United Kingdom if they are given half a chance.

One major problem within the NHS is the amount of management now present (it costs a lot, and diverts money from patient care). Who is responsible for that? In my experience, it was caused by the introduction of the current Trusts system. Who introduced that?

I remain unconvinced as to using NHS money to fund private operations. The companies that own the hospitals are in it to make money, and that profit has to come from somewhere..

The current problems with University funding can be traced back to the abolition of one thing. The student grant. Who abolished that?

Who introduced the tests and targets culture in schools?

As far as I am aware, all three of these problems were either directly or indirectly caused by the previous Tory administration. The current Labour government has either made them worse, or done nothing.