On 11/07/2012 22:31, Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:09:11 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

Recliner wrote on 11 July 2012 21:36:45 ...
[SNIP]
They're going to have to revert for quicker checks for low risk
arrivals, just as they used to do before Theresa May went all macho on
the subject. It's funny how the Home Office seems to be fatal for the
reputation of previously successful politicians.

Previously successful? What notable successes did she have previously?
This is her first ministerial appointment.

Yes, but that's true of most of the government, given how long it's
been since the last Tory and Liberal (!) governments. But she's been
in politics since 1986, in parliament since 1997, and was the first of
the 1997 batch of MPs to enter the shadow cabinet in 1999, where she
stayed under multiple leaders until she became home secretary after
the 2010 election. She was also the first female chairman of the
party, and has been increasing her majority in her Maidenhead
constituency. That's a pretty good record.


She also IMO correctly identified one of the Tories' problems as being
thought of as "the nasty party" by (a good deal of) the public.

On 12/07/2012 06:56, Roland Perry wrote:
[...]
In the old days, at places like Gatwick they'd let people waving the
cover of a British passport through a "fast lane" at the rate of two or
three a second, in much the same way they still run the Green Channel
customs lane (no documents, no discussions) most of the time.

You used to be able to wave the back (i.e. blank) side of a burgundy
passport and be waved through.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:44:41 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

On 11/07/2012 22:31, Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:09:11 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

Recliner wrote on 11 July 2012 21:36:45..
[SNIP]
They're going to have to revert for quicker checks for low risk
arrivals, just as they used to do before Theresa May went all macho
on the subject. It's funny how the Home Office seems to be fatal for
the reputation of previously successful politicians.

Previously successful? What notable successes did she have
previously?
This is her first ministerial appointment.

Yes, but that's true of most of the government, given how long it's
been since the last Tory and Liberal (!) governments. But she's been
in politics since 1986, in parliament since 1997, and was the first of
the 1997 batch of MPs to enter the shadow cabinet in 1999, where she
stayed under multiple leaders until she became home secretary after
the 2010 election. She was also the first female chairman of the
party, and has been increasing her majority in her Maidenhead
constituency. That's a pretty good record.

She also IMO correctly identified one of the Tories' problems as being
thought of as "the nasty party" by (a good deal of) the public.

She identified it, Cameron pulled a great con trick and now they're
back in power with the assistance of the lily livered custard yellow
party. Even nastier and more incompetent than the previous
incarnations.

If you don't realise they'd be a lot worse if they didn't have coalition
partners holding their nasties back you've not been listening.

And, to get back on topic, we have a government investing more in public
transport than at any time in recent decades.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:26:43 -0500
wrote:
She identified it, Cameron pulled a great con trick and now they're
back in power with the assistance of the lily livered custard yellow
party. Even nastier and more incompetent than the previous
incarnations.

If you don't realise they'd be a lot worse if they didn't have coalition
partners holding their nasties back you've not been listening.

A lot worse in what way? Being able to get shot of that ****ing human rights
act thats is nothing more than a criminal and illegal immigrants protection
charter?

Let me know when the tories get us into 2 wars in the middle east just to
suck up to the yanks.

B2003

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:26:43 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

She identified it, Cameron pulled a great con trick and now they're
back in power with the assistance of the lily livered custard yellow
party. Even nastier and more incompetent than the previous
incarnations.

If you don't realise they'd be a lot worse if they didn't have coalition
partners holding their nasties back you've not been listening.

And, to get back on topic, we have a government investing more in public
transport than at any time in recent decades.

I recognise that you will naturally defend the LDs and that's fair
enough. However this government is hopeless and vindictive and
unfair. The LDs have sided with the government to allow the
destruction of the health service and social services and to turn
education in Mr Gove's personal petrie dish. The Chancellor has no
idea about how to run the economy and can't design a budget that
warrants sustained examination. I don't think the electorate will
forgive Mr Clegg and his cohorts for what they have participated in. I
remain completely unconvinced that the LDs have really acted as any
sort of constraint and the Tories are simply playing a huge game to
prevent the LD's from getting any sort of electoral or democratic
reform which means the LD's support has been in vain. Still I guess
the LD MPs are enjoying exercising power regardless of the price the
rest of us are paying for their indulgence. I know you do not see it
like this Colin but I rather suspect you've got the minority view.

On the investment point then yes there has been some - I await the
publication of the HLOS next week. However strategically the
government has :-

1. No policy about improving bus transport. Their policies have
worsened financial support meaning cuts to services, increased fares
and more and more small independent businesses withdrawing from
operation. There is no policy either on resolving the mess around
competition policy which is now causing huge problems in respect of
First Group's disposals and the ability of anyone to take on those
routes.

2. There is no clear policy about rail franchising and how it should
work. The devil is in the detail and I think we are due to see some
very nasty issues emerge as bids come in for those franchises
currently on offer. The DfT will face a whole pile of problems around
affordability as it tries to shovel financial risk on to the private
sector. Services will have to be cut to pay for that. I think HS2
will continue to dog the government and the political risk is too
great for the Tories.

I think the government would do far better to create a rolling
programme of operational and investment improvement bringing together
capacity increases, better rolling stock and better operational
practice from NR and the TOCs. That would tie in some of the alliance
type stuff being done already plus things like electrification and
might create a forward programme of rolling stock build and
refurbishment that UK suppliers could win. A steady rolling programme
would give continuity of work if a sensible amount of money could be
allocated (i.e. that earmarked for HS2). Some of what has been
announced to date is positive but we need to see some coherent forward
planning, some difficult decisions taken (ie. scrap IEP and hS2) and
then some committed investment across the UK to deliver really good
rail services for everyone.

This does seem rather like "What have the Romans done for us?" rant. Aside
from the list of electrification schemes after a pathetic Labour record on
electrification, you are completely overlooking the inheritance this
government came into. Throw your mind back to what Mervyn King said before
the election about the job of governing afterwards.

And the NHS is not being destroyed, despite the rubbish spouted by the likes
of the Guardian. It will not be easy to sustain it through the huge
demographic changes that are coming but the Government is trying. The worst
bit about the current opposition is that they ignore what they themselves
said while in government about the sheer inability to sustain the public
spending programmes of the recent past in an ageing population.

3. Aviation policy remains a mess and a source of internal argument
for the Tories (Heathrow vs Boris Island). I think the government
want to expand Heathrow because of business pressure but are terrified
about the London and South East backlash. Having an angry Boris
wandering round is not what Cameron wants hence all the delays while
some botched fudge is worked out. I also think Justine Greening is in
an invidious position given her role as SofS but also MP for Putney.

Justine Greening is being very solid in support of her constituents in
Putney (who included my late mother). People in the transport industry are
rather annoyed with her because of it! Adrian Shooter let go about her at a
meeting I was at a few months ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Jarle H
Knudsen wrote:
They're going to have to revert for quicker checks for low risk
arrivals, just as they used to do before Theresa May went all macho on
the subject. It's funny how the Home Office seems to be fatal for the
reputation of previously successful politicians.

How quick can they do it? Every time I have arrived in the UK, the passport
check has taken about ten seconds.

On Sunday it took about 10 minutes to reach the front of the queue. The
check took about 20 seconds from memory.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , at 23:05:55 on Sat, 14
Jul 2012, Clive D. W. Feather remarked:
How quick can they do it? Every time I have arrived in the UK, the passport
check has taken about ten seconds.

On Sunday it took about 10 minutes to reach the front of the queue. The
check took about 20 seconds from memory.

Ever since the check was automated (~2yrs ago) the processing time has
been much more consistent. Previously it wasn't unusual to have a
conversation with the person, now it's "hello - goodbye".
--
Roland Perry