Britain/US split?

["Michael Keaney" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

Martin Brown wrote:

There are also prominent signs in all the rail stations warning
customers that any
loss of temper or out-burst against a member of the rail staff will be
treated as a criminal offense and prosecuted to the maximum extent of
the
law.   This seemed odd to me at the service seemed to be excellent, at
least
by U.S. standards.  Have these signs always been posted, or is this a
recent
symptom of the rail crisis?

=====

The well-documented decline in the quality and quantity of public
infrastructure is beginning to bite hard. This is evidenced most
graphically in the multiplicity of accidents occurring on the British
railways. But the "public" sector, so called, is in deep crisis owing to
systematic starvation of investment that predates Thatcher but was
intensified by her, and has continued up to now. Another of Judt's
musings that I could not understand was his waxing lyrical over
"swinging London". Sinking London would be nearer the mark. Mark Jones'
points re capital shortage hit home when one glances at the decaying
infrastructure of the capital city of Great Britain. For such a
supposedly rich country the development of underdevelopment is taking
place right under the noses of those whose job it is to facilitate its
"progress".

For commuters public transport -- and even private -- is a nightmare.
Thanks to the systematic sabotaging of efforts to remedy the London
situation alone (Thatcher's outlawing of the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy
in the early 80s followed by the destruction of the GLC itself; Blair's
insistence on PPP for the London Underground) the infrastructure is
visibly crumbling. The abandonment of regional policy by Thatcher led to
the property boom of the 1980s, originating in the south east's
attraction of private investment and jobs while whole swathes of what
are condescendingly called "the regions" were butchered, sometimes
literally, as with the mining industry. There has been no corresponding
increase of state-led investment in public transport provision to cater
for this increased demand. Indeed, one of Thatcher's great legacies has
been the forced sale by the British Railways Property Board of
"redundant" land turned over at a fraction of its true worth to cheap
housing developers like Conservative backers Lord Hanson (whose Hanson
Trust owned Beazer Homes) and Lawrie Barratt, whose "premier collection"
got a nice publicity boost when Margaret and Denis acquired one in the
late 80s. It is in the prosperous south east where the public squalor is
most pronounced, if only because of the contrast with private affluence.
In other areas the squalor is more uniform, but because the strain upon
infrastructure is far less its rate of decay has been correspondingly
slower. Also, some areas, especially Greater Glasgow, have benefited
from activist local government overseeing investment in commuter
services that have kept up a reasonable quality of performance, despite
the deliberate destruction by John Major of "that monstrosity"
Strathclyde Regional Council in 1996. Whatever else it was, it helped to
maintain passable transport services in an otherwise inhospitable
climate.

As a result of this strain, as with other public services, including
health and social security, those unfortunate enough to be employed in
administering transport services are at the sharp end when it comes to
legitimate user frustration. There is an increasing frequency of violent
attacks and threatening behaviour on railway staff, teachers, nurses,
doctors, social security advisers, etc., all because they have been
employed in much the same way as were the police during the miners'
strike, as a front line defence against those whom they nominally serve.
Underpaid and underappreciated, their morale is generally low and
contributes further to the sense of decay.

Cool Britannia indeed.

Michael K.