Labour, The TUC and the EU – A 100% Change Of Mind

I noticed recently on the local news, a story about Domino’s Pizza in Preston who had put a notice up stating all staff must speak English, threatening them with disciplinary action if they didn’t. Reason given was the ubiquitous ‘Elf and Safety’. A little unusual I thought in this politically correct, diverse country in which we now live, but good on them for standing up for what they believed they needed to do rather than just giving in like most business’ do these days.

What then surprised me more (though it probably shouldn’t have) was the response from Lynn Collins, regional secretary of the North West TUC, who said: "This is an employer who took on these staff, employed them knowing they were multi-lingual, and what a tremendous shame it is that they don't see the advantage to having a multi-lingual workforce in an area as diverse as the Preston community." - quite a pro diversity opinion there.

Lynn’s response got the cogs in my brain ticking, something in there was suggesting this wasn’t always the TUC’s opinion on diversity and the EU in general, low and behold a little more digging and I was right.

If you go back over the last 40 plus years, there were many occasions where the TUC, it’s workers and the Labour Party have supported anti-immigration policies along with opposing Britain’s entry into the European Union or the EEC as it was then.

In 1968, 200 London dockers marched in support of Enoch Powell’s speech (“I see the river Tiber foaming with much blood”) against immigration.

In the 1970’s the TUC General Council had opposed the Conservative government's decision to take Britain into the Common Market, with Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon being the chief protagonists of their anti-EEC position. Much of the Labour Party was equally opposed to membership of the EEC, it was Tory Prime Minister, Edward Heath who took us in to Europe in 1973.

In 1975, A one-day conference held by the Labour Party to debate Britain's membership of Europe voted by almost 2-1 to leave the EEC. The result underlining the deep splits within the party over the issue, which eventually went to a national referendum. There were just over 3.7m votes for rejecting EEC membership. Most of the votes came from the two biggest unions, the Transport Workers and the Engineering Workers.

Following this conference, the Wilson government called a referendum on the re-negotiated terms of Britain's membership and individual ministers and MPs were allowed to campaign on either side. The TUC General Council decided not to take a position either for or against, though Jack Jones was again one of the chief advocates of a vote against the EEC. The fact that the far right were also against the EEC didn’t stop the TUC and half of the Labour Party campaigning for a no vote in 1975.

In a speech he made on the 22^nd March, 1975 in Birmingham, Tony Benn stated “I am really warning people in the West Midlands that the capacity of British Ministers to help industry to re-equip is going to be gravely affected by membership, and that is one of the reasons why I hope the British people will vote to withdraw.” But of course, they didn’t.

For many years, withdrawal from the EU (or EEC) was the position of the TUC and Labour movement. For the obvious reason of, why would we want to surrender the national sovereignty that has allowed us to have the NHS, nationalised transport and utilities and good wages and Ts & Cs via collective agreements to an organisation of European capitalists seeking to create a common market in their interests?

Lord Lea of Crondall (formerly Assistant General Secretary of the TUC 1978-99) made a speech in 2010 where he stated that  “in 1988, the TUC's approach to the Economic Union was still based on a resolution of its 1981 Congress. This reflected the hostile stance of many of its major affiliated unions (especially, the T&GWU under Jack Jones) and Labour Party under Michael Foot, seeking withdrawal from the European Economic Community”

Even in the late 80’s, senior Labour figures such as Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner and Ken Livingstone remained totally hostile to any EEC/EU involvement - they still wanted a UK withdrawal.  A major shift in the opinion of Labour and the Unions occurred around 1988. Coincidently at the same time there became more and more unrest in the Tory party over EU membership. It does seem though that it was Blair’s New Labour that started the current pro EU shift amongst the left. Blair’s subsequent Government totally bought into the EU, opening up our borders to all and sundry, leaving us in the position we’re now in.

All this begs an even bigger question. Historically, all these Labour and Union figures that opposed Britain’s membership of the EU were from the Far Left of politics, much like the current Labour Leader Ed Milliband claims to be, so why then is RedEd so pro-EU and so unwilling to offer us an in/out referendum if he wins the next election? Maybe he’s not true to his far left ideals, or maybe he is just a legacy of New Labour like his brother after all.   

Why Can We Afford #HS2 But Not Power Stations ?

Is it me? Why is it that this government can afford £50 billion for a high speed railway, which a lot of people don't want but don't have any money for essential things like new power stations which only cost c£16 billion?

It strikes me as odd, that the government is willing to commit £50bn in building HS2, basing a business case on shaky assumptions about connectivity, capacity and its effect on growth, while the more critical issue of adequate power generation for the country is left to the considerations of private enterprise. Surely it should be the other way round? Or have I got it wrong ?

For the current price of HS2 we could build three nuclear power stations which would provide almost a quarter of our power requirement.

Hinkley Point C – French/Chinese Funded

A month ago, our government struck a deal with the French utility, EDF to build the country’s first new nuclear plant in a generation. EDF and its partners will take the risk of constructing the power station to budget and schedule. The company is expected to hold between 45-50% of the equity in the project.

Currently, the French nuclear developer Areva will hold 10%, and two state-owned Chinese companies – China General Nuclear Power Group and China National Nuclear Corp – will hold between 30-35%. EDF is in talks with other partners for a stake of up to 15%.

It forms the centrepiece of a long-awaited deal between the government and EDF and paves the way for the construction of the £16bn power station which, when completed in 2023, will provide 7 per cent of the UK’s electricity.

The construction costs of Hinkley nuclear power station maybe financed by China and France, but what we don’t get told is that the huge decommissioning costs (which dwarf the construction costs), will be dumped on to the British taxpayer. So as if by magic, an unattractive business proposition suddenly looks very appealing to foreign investors. We must be idiots to put up with this sort of thing.

Green Taxes and Subsidies

The generation and supply of power is a classic example of something that should remain in the public sector. There are so many outside influences that there is no way a private investor will recoup his expense via a normal commercial price mechanism. That’s why the government is willing to rig the price with all these CO2 emission charges and taxes, which ultimately aim to create inflated electricity price for years to come, to the huge detriment of us the customers, just to encourage private investors to commit funds for what will surely be a very long payback period.

Since the need for additional power generating capacity is now well beyond dispute, it would make sense for the state to enter the market itself and build that capacity. If the future energy price, driven by market forces, fell short of what the state generator needed to stay in business, then and only then would the government provide for the shortfall.

Currently the state charges us ‘green taxes’ then pays the power companies a subsidy (the strike price) for the power. If the state ran the power stations you could cut both out and reduce our power bills.

A similar arrangement to the Network Rail/TOC relationship could be created in the power sector whereby the state is responsible for power generation whilst the energy companies compete for the distribution. The state sets a standard tariff all the energy companies purchase at, they then have to declare their profit margin when bidding for a distribution franchise. This isn’t rocket science.  

HS2 – An Unnecessary Folly

Two of my previous blogs have concentrated on the waste of public money that is HS2 so I don’t intend to repeat it all here. Suffice to say, the need for it is very much disputed; cost estimations vary widely and, in any case, public funds sunk into this white elephant will ultimately benefit only those who will use the line in the future, not the rest of us.

There is no case for a benefit for the general public being provided here unlike power generation. Therefore, the obvious thing for the government to do is just to assure potential investors that the wayleave concessions would be obtained and allow them to weigh the likely benefits of such an investment. If private investors consider this investment sensible and profitable, they will undertake it. If not, they won’t. That surely will mean it is not worth being undertaken – unless of course the private sector say otherwise.

Pure Ideology

These policies aren’t going to change. The government have now started discussions with the power companies about how much the strike price (subsidy!!) will be needed to get further new power stations built, such as Wylfa on Angelesy. It is about time we started thinking in terms of strategically important infrastructure rather then endless discussions about whether wind farms get more subsidy then the fossil fuel industry gets tax breaks etc.

I still find it totally amazing that Cameron and Co are prepared to leave the provision of our power supply to the French tax payers and Communist China, whilst using our own money to pay for a posh boys train set. Am I missing something here in the priorities stakes?

Both main parties have persisted in privatising transport, whether that be rail, buses or air saying they must be subject to commercial market forces despite subsidising them, yet the biggest investment in the transport network in decades is being funded by the state. Similarly both main parties have perpetuated the system whereby our essential power and water infrastructures are run by the private sector but again with massive subsidies. It’s just plain daft ! 

All this goes to show is that there are very little differences between the polices of the two main identikit parties. To me, it's pure ideology that's going to end with this country being reduced in status to being a mere 'customer' of other states and will continue until the money, the credit and the debt evaporates into the coffers of foreign countries. 

Sorry Roy, but Haley’s Right

Many of you have probably been watching Coronation Street recently and it’s moving storyline pitting Roy’s morals over Haley’s reality. In the soap, after being diagnosed with an untreatable cancer, Hayley Cropper is planning her own death with her husband Roy fighting her over it. Julie Hesmondhalgh who plays Haley said in a recent interview, “It’s a very complicated issue.

“Everybody feels that if they got a terminal disease they’d want to be shot but obviously there are massive ethical issues around that, and it’s easy to exploit older people.

“It is very delicate. Maybe we need to sign something now, when we are fit and healthy, rather than when we’re old but even then it’s complex. When is the right time?

“I want to be able to say my goodbyes properly, so I think it’s something that needs to be talked about.

“And yes, personally, I would like the law to change but I know this is going to be a very long and very complex road.”

"Hear Hear" I say. And I’m glad a mainstream, highly respected programme such as Coronation Street is brave enough to address the issue. For me, choosing how we die should be a basic human freedom. If an individual's quality of life is terrible, they should have the right to stop suffering.

Suicide : A Human Right

The Human Rights act gives people of the UK many many rights, including the right to life. But if you have the right to life, then why not the right to die when you want. Why should the state and society say ‘You are not allowed to legally die under any circumstances except natural ones” ? 

For me you should have the right to assert that you are in control over your own life, not society, not the state. If you don’t want to be here then why should you be forced to stay? Suicide should be your right not a crime.

Actually, many people already choose how long they live their life, anyway, but the choice isn't always conscious. There's the cigarette argument. I'm going to die at some point so might as well die having pleasure. Of course this isn’t just smoking, it applies to bungee jumping, sky diving, etc. I suppose some may argue that no one expects to die in the process of doing these things, but certainly knowledge of the risk associated with such activities would make those engaged in such activities culpable for their own death, ergo suicide.

Why Do People Choose To Die ?  

According to the Philosophy Today website, The Six Reasons People Attempt Suicide are

• They're depressed
• They're psychotic
• They're impulsive
• They're crying out for help
• They have a philosophical desire to die
• They've made a mistake 

It is a widely held misconception that people with terminal illnesses or disabilities are more likely than those in the general population to want to end their lives. In fact suicidal thinking is far more likely to be related to feelings of hopelessness or worthlessness - existential or spiritual factors that may accompany illness - rather than physical symptoms which can in the main be effectively controlled.

90% of those who commit suicide suffer from some form of mental health issues including depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and alcohol or drug misuse.

The American psychologist Thomas Joiner has said that the three main factors causing someone to turn to suicide are:

• A perception (usually mistaken) that they are alone in the world and that no one really cares about them.
• A feeling (again, usually mistaken) that they are a burden on others and that people would be better off if they were dead.
• Fearlessness towards pain and death 

It is when these factors accompany illness that people might begin to find the prospect of euthanasia or assisted suicide appealing. But then our response, as with any suicidal person, is always to get them to address the issues, instead of them being allowed death as a choice.

It is simply false that people who commit suicide are mentally ill, although no doubt some suicides are the result of mental illness. In many cases, the decision to commit suicide is reached with proper information and good reasoning.

The Right to Life

In reality, there is no right to life, life is an accident, and human life is no more precious or sacred than every other life, no matter what the species. Too many humans have the attitude that human life is sacred, while slaughtering other species for a variety of reasons from food, to profit, to fun.

Since human life is now overwhelming the ecosystem, and modern medicine is keeping people alive who would otherwise be dead, suicide is a creative and ‘other’ life affirming act. To me, depression is just as valid a reason to stop living as any other. But it’s all a bit macabre going to a clinic especially to die. Far better to end your life in your own time, at home, calmly and quietly and with no pain. The institutionalisation of death isn’t for me, I do it my way.

People play the religious card all the time. "Life is sacred". Not to an atheist it isn’t. I find it morally unacceptable I should have to obey rules based on religious nonsense. The issue of whether suicide is morally permissible is different from that of whether suicide is reasonable. Note that there are many unreasonable and stupid things that can be morally permissible.

Suicide is a Selfish Act Carried Out By Cowards

A common comment is suicide is selfish and that it causes much pain to those left behind. They may rightly blame themselves and yes it is harder to get over the death of a suicide, than someone killed in an accident. If someone’s family and friends were there in the first place, they wouldn’t necessarily be feeling suicidal would they? Again, if they try to interfere, it’s because they are the ones who have to live with the death and whatever feelings of inadequacy, shame etc., that they feel, that’s their problem. 

The whole selfish argument often takes the form of “Oh, people who kill themselves are selfish. They are cowards.” What a classy move! Let’s project our feelings about the death and place the blame on the person who is no longer here. Yes, in a way it is selfish. The depressed person is finally standing up and doing something 100% for their best interests. They probably didn’t do that in life, so it’s shocking to others that that person finally stood up for themselves. As for coward? To admit that your life is meaningless, empty, non-productive and only bringing you pain, and then choosing to do something about it is quite the opposite of cowardly. It takes a brave person to admit enough is enough and step away from a life going nowhere. Cowards stick around, spend a lifetime suffering trying to make others happy because they didn’t die and leave them with a guilty conscience.

Those people who say "suicide cause people to suffer a loss and is therefore totally selfish" is in fact also selfish. Because they don’t want to suffer a loss, they convince the person who is suffering to remain alive, and usually give only small or no consideration of what this person may actually be feeling. To be honest, you don't really want to get into "why do you want to commit suicide" sort of question. It's certainly not something normal people can understand. So long as they’ve done their bit to stop someone committing suicide their conscience is clear, whether the suicidal friend’s life has improved as a consequence is by the by.

The only area that suicide is not good is its effect on society. Somebody has got to clean up the mess. Some people do have to suffer a loss. Though other than the social effect, there isn't much "bad" about suicide.

Why Not Legalise Suicide?

Legalising suicide risks turning it into a lifestyle choice. But what is wrong with free choice? My responsibilities to others do not run to what I do to myself. I’ll mind my business, other people should mind theirs.

According to the widely accepted ethical principle of respect for autonomy (i.e. freedom of choice), people should have the right to control their own body and life (as long as they do not abuse any other person's rights), and the state should not create laws that prevent citizens being able to choose when and how they die.

Back to Haley

Roy’s idea that Haley should keep on living at all costs because there's always hope that things will get better is very problematic. Sure, it is possible that tomorrow someone will discover the cure for her horrible disease and give it to her. But reasonable decisions are made on the basis of what is probable, not merely of what is possible. It's certainly possible that tomorrow I'll win the lottery, but it would be unreasonable of me to start making debts today because what is possible need not be probable.

Although some, perhaps many cases of suicide do show disregard for the feelings or the interests of family and friends, it's simply false that all do. Sometimes people commit suicide with the agreement of family and friends, and sometimes they take into due consideration not only their own feelings and interests but also the ones of others. Hence, suicide need not be a selfish act any more than most other acts. This is Haley’s attitude and I think it’s the right one and it should now be carried out within the law.

Sometimes Suicidal Thoughts Alone are Enough

Sometimes it’s actually healthy to contemplate suicide. I've found that by thinking about it rationally and not too emotionally or seriously, you find that by embracing the ability to commit suicide, you free yourself from a lot of the pressures and responsibilities that might lead you to those thoughts in the first place. It is a kind of paradox.

For example, someone contemplating suicide because of financial responsibilities, find that the thought of being free of those responsibilities makes more agreeable options available, (such as declaring bankruptcy or just running away from those debts). 

I think suicidal thoughts are more natural than we like to admit. It is often a self-propagating state of despair which ultimately prevents someone from looking for alternative solutions. The prohibition and taboo surrounding the illegality of suicide might actually make the problem worse. It becomes a kind of "weapon" to use against others rather than a legitimate solution.

Why Do Governments Get Procurement So Wrong ?

Its been announced this week that the cost of the two new aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy is now expected to be almost twice the original estimate. In the latest budget, the Ministry of Defence is set to estimate the cost of the two ships at £6.2bn. The department says it is renegotiating the contract to avoid further significant rises. Six years ago, when the contract was approved, costs were put at £3.65bn !

Blimey !!! A Government project where the final cost is way more than the initial price? Who'd have ever thought such a thing could happen?

It’s a pity that our politicians can't pitch their wits to improve procurement as well as they do with their expenses! You’d think that any government, with all its top notch barristers, would be able to draw up water-tight contracts with severe penalties if they were not met, in terms of time and money.  It’s not a one off either, this story is repeated over and over, with no lessons ever learned. No apologies to the tax payer, Oh I forgot! It's only us tax payer’s money they’re losing so who cares ? Well I do !

When bankers' greed costs us billions we rightly call for their heads, then when civil servants demonstrate financial incompetence and cost us billions it seems we give them a fat pension ! 'When will someone be sacked' everyone shouts ? If you are that far over budget you don't actually have one.  Any private sector business would have had the banks screaming long before now.

Or so the shouters would have it. BUT – Dig below the surface and there’s a lot more to it than basic incompetence.

Historically We’ve Always Failed

According to a report published in May, a third of the Government’s 200 biggest infrastructure projects are either over-budget or have been delayed. At least 70 road, rail, defence or IT schemes are running into trouble and need further changes or new leadership to see them through in time and on budget, but it’s always been that way.

Way back when, the Suez Canal cost 20 times as much as the earliest estimates; even the cost estimate produced the year before construction began underestimated the project's actual costs by a factor of three. The Sydney Opera House cost 15 times more than was originally projected, and Concorde cost 12 times more than predicted.

Other more recent examples, large and small include :

Millennium Dome                              

Original estimated cost: £399m

Final Cost : £789M

Scottish Parliament                             

Original estimated cost: £40m

Final cost: £414.4m

Swipe cards for benefit claimants     

Original estimated cost: £1bn

Final cost: Project scrapped after spending £1bn

Jubilee Line                                          

Original estimated cost: £2.1bn

Final cost: £3.5bn

Channel Tunnel                                    

Original estimated cost:£4.8bn

Final cost: £10bn

Swanwick Air Traffic Control Centre  

Original estimated cost: £350m

Final cost: £623m

NHS IT System                                     

Original estimated cost: £2.3bn

Final cost: Project scrapped after spending £12bn

Astute Class Submarines                   

Original estimated cost: £2.58bn

Final cost: £3.8bn

Type 45 Destroyer

Original estimated cost: £5.48bn

Final cost: £6.46bn      

       

Nimrod Upgrade                                  

Original estimated cost: £500m

Final cost: Project scrapped after spending £3.8bn

Olympic Games                                   

Original estimated cost: £2.4bn

Final cost: £9.3bn

I could go on, there were the network of Fire Control Centres that were all abandoned after spending a fortune on them because they weren’t able to get the IT to work.

There was the cock-up with the Chinook helicopters where the MoD failed to specify access to the software code in the original contract with Boeing, they were consequently stored unused from 2002 until 2011.

Unless things change, HS2 will go the same way for sure. £50bn today will easily go to £100bn before its even delivered.

Suffice to say our Government’s, whichever party is in power, have always been appalling at managing the procurement of large capital projects.

So Who or What’s To Blame?

Those of a left wing pursuasion like to see ‘big business’ being continually blamed for this, going on about profiteering, fingers in the till, Government ministers having an ‘interest’ in the winning company etc. I don’t think this is the real the reason. If the right processes and management were in place these things couldn’t happen anyway.

Having been involved in bidding and managing public sector construction projects for many many years I’ve a good idea what works and what doesn’t, and where the cost escalation comes from.

Most people question how it is that government contracts can increase in price. They say surely whoever in the government agrees these contracts, creates a fixed price project with penalties if it arrives late? They think there should be no clauses allowing prices to increase. And in general, there aren’t !

Despite what people believe, prices are fixed. They’re fixed against the scheme design that was advertised, bid and won. However, this is very rarely the final scheme and that’s where the problem lies.

A quote on a newspaper website which a member of the public posted in the comment box below the aircraft carrier article was : 

“My brother builds small ships, once he prepares a quote, he can't add thousand of pounds halfway through the build. Perhaps a bit for inflation for material but that's it. If he get the quote wrong that his problem not the buyer.”

And there lies the crux of public perception. His brother will have provided a fixed price against a specification. After entering into contract, if the client then changed the specification, under contract law, his brother would be entitled to change his price for the element that has changed as he’s now providing something he didn’t tender for. 

"Why can’t they get the price right at the beginning?" is a commonly asked question. In many cases they do for the design as it stood then. But then the Government/Client changed what they wanted and that costs money to re-develop, re-design, and then build. That’s called a Variation to Contract, it raises the capital cost and adds time to the project timescale, which then adds even more cost. The more variations you have, the more the cost escalates.

It’s often alleged that some defence industry suppliers win contracts by offering bids which are less than the cost of production in the certain knowledge that specifications will be changed and modifications demanded by the MoD during the procurement process. When the specifications are changed significantly, contractors are free to ‘renegotiate’ their contract with the MoD. Leading to vast over spends on procurement.

So these cost escalations are no doubt largely down to changes in specification by the client, some maybe driven by Government policy and changes, but often its just persistant meddling with the design by the client and his team.

Having worked on projects, I know that if the brief is changed part-way into the project the money spent thus far will often be lost, and effectively re-spent getting back to the same position, added to new costs for a different specification. Under the contract, all this is claimable from the client by the contractor. And so it should be !

Quite simply, if contractors build what they tendered for in the first place the cost will not change.  

What Needs To Change ?

A number of things.

Firstly the addressing of ‘scope creep’ is essential. Designs should be frozen at the point the contractor is appointed. If changes are required then do them after it’s handed over to the client. It’s often argued that it’s cheaper to do changes during construction, and yes the straight capital cost of a change can be cheaper then, but add on the extension of programme to incorporate the change and associated cost that that attracts and it starts to become expensive, especially when a number of changes are made simultaneously.

Stopping scope creep leads to clients having to get it right at the start, this is difficult for them and may increase their costs but it should bring down the ultimate outturn cost of the scheme.

Too many client side people are involved in the development of equipment and projects. One department wants this, another department wants that and it all means more changes which costs time and money. Cut out the number of departments involved and once a design has been agreed, stick to it and look at modifying and upgrading later. If we had waited for the Mk 10 Spitfire to be built we would now be speaking German.

Secondly, the private sector are very good at project management, they have to be, its their money they’re protecting. Civil servants managing complex procurement schemes should change. The government should establish an arms length project management company operating as a private sector business, manned by private sector cost and project managers and leave them to manage projects without political interference.

Where fixed price tenders aren’t suitable due to risk and unknowns then a Guaranteed Maximum Price should be agreed, that GMP can include a pain/gain mechanism whereby additional profit is shared between the client and contractor whilst all losses are the contractors alone. It can also detail who holds monies against different risks – client or contractor. To simply put all risk to the contractor will simply lead to an inflated cost or no bidders in the first place. 

Call me simple, but the whole process should quite simply be:

1) Put work out to tender in a detailed form as possible

2) Review bids

3) Award work to best value bidder

4) Don’t change the design or specification

5) Work is done

6) Payment is made at the price they bid.

If a contractor moans, "But the price of steel has gone up globally". So what? He should have seen that coming and included for it. Build such things into your original bid or bear the additional cost yourself.

These simple remedies may sound like common sense and they might solve some of the problems. However, government procurement and common sense have never been good bed fellows, so don’t hold your breath. Just watch us carrying on doing what we’ve always done and getting the same results we’ve always got.

HS2 will cost over £100bn by the time its finished, in fact I’m off down the bookies to put some money on it - though I don’t think I’ll be getting good odds on it. Do You ?

Is Today’s World Really A Safer Place Than During The Cold War ?

I grew up during the seventies and eighties in a world dominated by the Cold War, it was a scary time. We all knew if it kicked off between the superpowers it would be curtains for all of us.

Did this worry me? Well no, of all the things that did worry me nuclear war wasn’t one of them. To me I entertained the thoughts that despite all the political finger pointing, both sides would rather live than die so I doubted anyone would push that button. Mutually Assured Destruction actually gave the world a level of stability and in many ways made it an intrinsically safer world than it seems to be today.

Rose Tinted Spectacles

Was the Cold War era, on the whole, a safer era or do we look at it against today’s world through rose tinted spectacles ? In truth it may have been safer but the flashpoints were bigger.

However tricky our relationships with Putin's Russia and President Hu Jintao's China are nowadays, the prospect of our entering a massive and mutually cataclysmic conflict with either nation are vastly reduced.

We seem to have forgotten that the Americans argued passionately for "nuking" communist China during the Korean War and again during the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1954. We also have apparently forgotten how close we came to a nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Similarly, we've forgotten the shock of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which prompted the then German Chancellor, Helmut Schmidt to ask, "Is this the new Sarajevo?" (a reference to the outbreak of World War I). A serious of events around 1983 almost triggered a nuclear war, they started with Ronald Reagan referring to the Soviet Union as “This Evil Empire” and culminated in a NATO computer based military exercise being misinterpreted by the Soviets as an actual invasion, triggering them going to a full war status minutes away from attack, before they realised their error.

Those were really scary times, and potentially much more dangerous than our present circumstances because the possible damage that could be inflicted during an East-West conflagration was far, far greater than anything that Al Qaeda can do to us now. No one has the exact totals, but we probably had 20,000 missiles pointed at each other, often on high alert. And the threat of an accidental discharge was high.

Nobody under 25 years old today lived through the Cold War and find it hard to understand.

To recapture that periods danger these days, you need to watch Cold War movies such as; "The Manchurian Candidate," "Fail Safe," "Dr. Strangelove," "The Hunt for Red October," "Five Days in May," "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold." Kids today look rather dumbfounded when told that we came close, on several occasions, to World War III. A new series coming up on BBC2 intends to explore the history of the Cold War and should be interesting.

Many Cold War “What If?” questions still abound. Examples include - What if, Josef Stalin had prevented American and British supply aircraft from flying into Berlin in 1948-49? Those years from 1945 to 1990 weren’t a bed of roses on other accounts too. China's Mao Tse Tung's ‘Great Leap Forward’ led to as many as 30 million deaths, the greatest loss of life since the Black Death. The Soviet Union was incarcerating tens of thousands of its own citizens in the gulags, as were most of the other members of the Warsaw Pact. The Indo-Pakistan wars, and the repeated Arab/Israeli conflicts produced enormous casualties, but nothing like the numbers that were being slaughtered in Angola, Nigeria, the Congo, Vietnam and Cambodia.

It is hard to explain to a younger generation that such delightful countries where they now holiday such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Brazil, South Africa, Poland and Czechoslovakia (to name only a few) were run in those days by fascist generals, avowed racists or one-party totalitarian regimes. I am ancient enough to remember the long list of countries you wouldn’t dare visit for your summer holidays.

So maybe we shouldn’t get too nostalgic about the good old days of the Cold War. Today's global challenges, from Iraq, Syria and Egypt, through to radicalism, energy costs and the unproven climate change issue are indeed grave and cry out for solutions.

Overall though, mankind as a whole is a lot more prosperous these days, we’re a great deal more free and democratic and a considerable way further from nuclear obliteration than we were in Ronald Reagan and Leonid Brezhnev’s time.

More Unpredictable

The world may no longer be facing a global confrontation between two confrontational super powers with competing ideologies. The current world, however, is a lot more unpredictable. Religious extremism and intolerance is the biggest problems that are creating instability. I also think that in the future, multi- faceted trade disagreements are going to escalate into conflicts between countries.

During the Cold War you knew who your enemy was and into which camps people were falling, nowadays your enemy could easily be found within.

More Insane

At least during the Cold War our adversaries were fairly sane. They were predictable. Mutually Assured Destruction made sense. Nuclear weapons were in the hands of a relative few. There was even a mutual respect for each other's spies, cultural exchanges and sporting competitions. In other words, there was some sense of order and standards that lead to some sanity and predictability.

Today however, we deal with insanity. We now have enemies who make it quite clear that whilst we value life, they value death. They hold, in many cases, an apocalyptic view of how history unfolds.

Radical Islam is now at the core of the vast majority of world conflicts. The history of Islam has been one of growth through spreading by the sword. A good question to consider is whether Al Qaida is as dangerous as the old Soviet Union? They’re certainly not as potentially dangerous. The Soviets had the power to wipe us off the face of the earth. However, at moments of truth the Soviets always backed off. Why? Because they believed in a future for their kids, their nation and their world.

Do Al Qaida really care about all of the this? Just look at the indiscriminate killing they are carrying out against their fellow Muslims, let alone what they perceive as infidels. Any group of people who have teenagers wearing explosive belts in order to commit a suicide bombing is far more dangerous than the Soviets.

The Soviet Union didn’t want to sacrifice itself. The Taliban however, seems to gladly want to if it will promote their cause. As such, the Soviets could be dealt with. But just how do you deal with the Taliban ?

So is it or isn’t it a safer place ?

I think that there are many reasons to say Yes, but probably more to say no.

In the ‘Yes’ camp, we’re certainly no longer staring down the gun-barrel of megaton bombs "keeping the peace" and all that implies. Remember, we were ready for nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Soviets and a pretty psychopathic attitude toward their capabilities. Global trade has now taken over with major nations unlikely to go to war with each other anymore for fear of loss of valuable trade.

In the ‘No’ camp, we can’t ignore the fact that extremist religious terrorists have taken the place of the superpowers. At least during the cold war, global security was so concerned about "the cold war" that minor spats and extremism were clamped down on by one of the respective superpowers.

 The emergence of radical extremism means we’re not safer now, if anything it’s more dangerous. We now have a multi-polar civilization, meaning that we have many who have differing agendas. Examples include, the new liberation movements in Africa or the Jihad movements of militant Islam. While some are more radical that others, there are always factions in each that will go to any length to further their aims, maybe to the point of nuclear holocaust. Besides that, China, Russia, and even some independent (formerly USSR) states still have the capacity to launch nuclear missiles. Add to that India and Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and/or any of the radical Muslim states, all it takes is one stray bomb and lots of accusations to set off a global war that could still annihilate the human civilization. Don't be fooled by this period of peace, there are still many dangers.

It's less predictable, which could be worse in the long run. In the Cold War, we knew the enemy and there was (except for a few periods) constant negotiation. In today’s multi-polar world, no one quite knows the "rules," and there is much less predictability. In the long run, I think that's more likely to prove problematic.

Different threats, But They’re Still Just As Deadly

Most of us no longer have to worry about mushroom clouds suddenly appearing out of no-where anymore. We’re probably safer from total nuclear annihilation, but the hazards from religious extremism, terrorism, global warming, and from rogue states holding nuclear weapons is greater.

The world is safer from nuclear war, however as 911 and 711 has shown us, we are still vulnerable to terrorists attacks. During the Cold War we knew who had nuclear and chemical weapons. With the break up of the Soviet Union, there is far less accountability and control over who can obtain a nuclear device. We may not have to worry about a global nuclear war, but the threat of a suitcase nuclear bomb being detonated on Western soil is very real.

Before, when you had two powers, they would fight proxy wars against each other, but never with each other because it would lead to nuclear war. Now with only one superpower, and with weapons that now go on sale that anyone can buy, it’s made the world much less safe. Religious extremist want to make a point. They want to create the most damage possible. This is what we face today, a terrorist attack, a plague or a cyber attack on our banking system. We face this now. All of our weapons, tanks, and planes can’t protect us from this either. 

Through the acts of success governments, we have evolved to where we now are as a nation. Unless we take steps to reverse some of those acts, we can expect more of these insecurities. Maybe it is just a result of increasing world population, maybe technology advances or ease of transportation. Without a concerted effort to change it, I don't think the future looks very rosy. And I don't think the world is safer today than it was during the Cold War. It’s a very different world but no safer.

More Waste - £76m for a busway that’ll only have 8 buses an hour on it

On the day that Liverpool announced the suspension of its entire network of bus lanes, at the other end of the East Lancs Road, work stated on a dedicated, bus only,  13-mile route, costing £76m between Leigh and central Manchester.

Work has started on the £76million, thirteen mile bus-only route. It won’t open until 2015. It is known as the Leigh Guided Busway, and features a four-mile section on guided concrete ‘tracks’ along a disused railway that only specially-adapted buses will be able to use. The rest of the route follows the A580 East Lancs Road and includes measures such as dedicated bus lanes and bus priority junctions to help buses avoid delays. It is promised that it will cut journey times from Leigh to central Manchester to less than 50 minutes. The route will only have 14-stops – seven in each direction - and follows the former railway route between East Bond Street in Leigh and Newearth Road in Ellenbrook.

There are currently three lanes for cars along the East Lancs Road, but once the bus lanes are built there will only be two car lanes in most sections. The only vehicles able to use the guided section will be special buses, allowing them to avoid traffic congestion. Services will run along bus lanes on the East Lancs Road through to Manchester city centre.

In an attempt to justify this scheme, Councillor Andrew Fender, chairman of the TfGM (Transport for Greater Manchester) Committee, is quoted as saying: “The Leigh Busway is the flagship scheme of a much wider bus priority package – one of the largest investments in Greater Manchester’s bus network for decades, with over 25 miles of the network being either created or improved. The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway has been successful way beyond expectations and I look forward to seeing the same success enjoyed here.”

Not Wanted

Now I work with a number of people from Leigh who are adamant that nobody wants this scheme, the local press letters pages, similarly reflect this view, indeed I’ve struggled to find anybody that thinks it’s a good idea, so why are they going ahead with it?  Interesting that the Councillor refers to the Cambridge busway, what he failed to mention though, was it was 4 years late being completed and finally cost more than two and a half times the original budget cost. So another Government transport infrastructure scheme that totally overspent, take note Leighthers (and HS2 for that matter).

Unanswered Questions ?

This scheme seems to pose more questions than it’s provided answers to. Here’s just a few I thought of, and they’re fairly simplistic : 

• I am surely not the first to ask the simple mathematical question whereby, if you cut parts of the East Lancs Road from three lanes to two, then unless the buses on the busway take one third of the travellers, won’t the road be even more congested than it is now?
• Another question without an answer is quite simply, as the buses will run between concrete "rails" what happens if a bus breaks down on the guided busway? Its not as if the next bus coming along can simply overtake it. This will only then lead to severely delayed services whilst recovery is underway!
• They proclaim that the busway can reduce the journey time from Leigh to Manchester to around 50 Minutes. Fair enough, but for the vast majority of the day it takes significantly less than 50 minutes to drive the route. Won’t reducing the East Lancs Road to two lanes actually slow motorists down thus increasing their journey to 50 minutes or more ? Or are they being economical with the truth and only referring to bus passengers ? I suspect the latter ! 

See, these are just simple questions, they’re not rocket science !

What do the local people want ?

Most local people are of the opinion they should just scrap the idea & return the route to its original use as a railway or light railway with the Metrolink running on it. Surely a Metrolink extension from Eccles is the answer ? It may cost more buts its usage would be astronomical with a very rapid payback period. Converting the old railway to Metrolink instead of making it a busway is giving the people what they want. But of course, councillors know better !

People in Leigh currently enjoy the green spaces but the busway is going right through it. What a shame to have them spoilt when urban green space is so difficult to find in this country today.

Many people think the East Lancs Road should be improved for cars, especially near Salford endand Leigh should be connected to the tram or rail networks. Most locals already think this busway will prove to be a great white elephant (HS2 anyone?)

Every one I have spoken to from Leigh thinks the same. The busway is an utter waste of money, no use for commuters getting to work in Manchester and it certainly won't bring people into Leigh. If Leigh can’t have the Metrolink then Leigh needs a train station or at least a link to one. Leigh is supposed to be the largest town in the UK without a railway station. There is a costed scheme which you can easily find on the internet, for a spur from the Manchester to Liverpool line to a new Leigh station which will only cost £50m and is supported by all the local political parties, surely this is a better value solution for everyone?  

Traffic Chaos

For the next two years, while the work is carried out, traffic chaos will ensue. Not just on the East Lancs Road but on other routes that people will switch to to avoid the Lancs such as the M62 and M602 both of which are chokka in rush hour anyway. Just how green is this chaos?? All these vehicles will be stood still, belching out carbon, it can’t be good for the atmosphere, and there is no clean green alternative, and they’re not building one either.

It is a total waste of money, all it will do is make this heavily congested road worse. To reduce the capacity of the road by a third when the works are finished is crazy and if anyone with any brains at TfGM or the local authorities could actually work a calculator, they’d see that they couldn't possibly provide enough buses to compensate for the reduced capacity of the road.

Maybe the brains behind this waste of money should be forced to actually sit in the chaos both ways daily. What we really need is proper efficient public transport, such as Metrolink, we need better roads, we don’t need more empty buses.

Idiots

I often wonder whether the idiots who dream up these road chaos schemes ever use public transport or is it the case of do as we tell you and not as we do? Why once again must the motorist be punished? We need more road space for cars not less, very few people use buses they are still perceived as expensive, dirty and not a safe environment to travel in. No matter what you did, this perception will not change so deal with it.

At the end of the day, with the exception of HS2, I've not heard of a more ridiculous waste of money in all of my life. The publicity leaflet they’ve produced admits that there is only going to be eight buses an hour. So they plan to inconvenience thousands of people on the East Lancs Road every day for just eight buses an hour! Total madness! If they're struggling to spend £76m go build the railway spur, or go hunting for a bit more and extend the Metrolink. 

Nobody in Leigh wants it, the people of Salford and the surrounding areas don’t want it. The cost does not justify the upheaval, all it will deliver is a bigger traffic jam. Its TfGM’s version of HS2. TfGM claim that using the busway could cut the journey time from Leigh to Manchester to just 50 minutes. To me, it all seems a lot of money to spend and a lot of inconvenience for other road users just to get a bus that averages 16mph and only stops seven times !!