Monday's letters: Railways paid price of Tory dogma and lack of investment

Rail privatisation was carried out for purely dogmatic reasons to help swell Treasury coffers and divest the Government of its support liability.

Railways had been starved of investment throughout all the Tory years from 1979 and were working on a sticking plaster, patch-and-mend basis. During this period and in subsequent years Continental governments heavily invested in their railways and retained control. The benefit of this investment is plain to see and leads to much criticism of our system by people returning from Europe.

In fact, I recently shared a journey to Cornwall with a German family who were very surprised at the number of companies involved in their rail holiday in Britain.

The privatisation actually left the taxpayers subsidising railways to a greater extent than when in public ownership, and but for the change of government which led to massive resources being applied the lines to which he refers, particularly in the North, simply would not have existed.

Also, we would have been left with only four main lines. There was even talk in some places of turning railway lines into motorways. I do not need to comment on the chaotic arrangements for ticket purchase.

Only recently the Government has announced investments in new rolling stock and infrastructure paid fully by the taxpayer.

In fact, infrastructure maintenance and improvement was a disaster until the current not-for-profit company Railtrack was put in charge. The east coast main line was nationalised because companies could not run it and, as for the comparison with open access operator Grand Central, it is much easier to achieve better figures if you only run half a dozen services instead of those totalling approximately 450 hours from Monday to Friday between London, Scotland and Leeds.

The need for cash, one of his conclusions, was absolutely correct.

Had this been forthcoming at a level commensurate with now throughout the period from 1979 to 1997 we would have a national railway system to compare with any in Europe.

Standards fall with far too many students

From: David W Wright, Easingwold, North Yorkshire.

THE letters from Paul M Rouse and Don Burslam (Yorkshire Post, November 30) are spot-on and clearly reinforce the majority opinion about the latest antics of the protesting students and the assorted rag-bag of anarchists and Left-wing trouble makers including their supporters within the student and lecturers' unions.

Watching the antics of these protesters one cannot but notice their scruffy appearance and complete inability to be able to justify their actions. It is increasingly obvious that there are far too many students being given the doubtful privilege of a university education due to the dumbing-down of standards and the mantra of university education for all, irrespective of ability, commitment and employment opportunities and demand from industry and commerce.

This situation is not helped by the large numbers of lecturers who enjoy very generous salaries to teach subjects which are of no use to anyone.

From: Penny Ebden, Harefield Close, Eastburn, Keighley.

AS leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Nick Clegg made certain promises in the party's manifesto. Then in his office as Deputy Prime Minister in a coalition Government, coupled with the knowledge of the parlous state of the country's finances left by the Labour Government, he has been compelled to reconsider. His unease in this can only be imagined.

Students have traditionally exercised their democratic rights to protest, which indicates they may have thoughts worth declaring: however in this case I feel they have joined the ranks of some misguided television presenters who don't seem to have comprehended the meaning of "coalition". Nick Clegg and his fellow Liberal Democrats have found themselves in a position of being able to influence, to some extent, the workings of government while not having overall control.

In these difficult times, we all have to accept some restraint and finding someone to blame will not lessen the impact.

From: Nick Blitz, South Lane, Haxby, York.

SO the first crisis of confidence has arrived for the Lib Dem coalition players at Westminster: its focus is "Man of York" Vince Cable.

Vince is uncertain whether to support Government policy on student tuition fees, for which he is directly ministerially responsible. Or keep faith with his party's May 2010 manifesto: its contract with the Lib Dem electorate, which, in York Outer, included me.

Clearly coalition Government imposes stresses, rules and requirements on its participants which need not apply with governments of one party, but his actions and decisions sees the value of the party manifesto – its electoral contract – undermined.

Very well, but – perhaps inevitably – the political can will be carried by the Lib Dem candidates on the doorsteps at next May's council elections: defending the indefensible and enduring the political backlash.

Mothers made to feel guilty

From: Janice Franklin, Town Road, Tetney, Lincolnshire.

I AM just writing to compliment you on the excellent article by Jayne Dowle on the breast feeding issue (Yorkshire Post, December 2).

For far too long, mothers have been made to feel guilty about their choice not to breast feed (with suggestions of allergies and slower development) instead of being applauded for having the sense to do what they feel right and not what is almost forced upon them.

Although my children are now all in their thirties, I made the choice not to breast feed all those years ago and even then it was slightly frowned upon.

Some people find it the most wonderful experience and that is great – for them – but for some of us the thought and feel of breast feeding was just dreadful. Like your writer says, don't treat all mothers the same and let them make their own choices without feeling guilty. At the end of the day, what we all want is happy and contented children and mothers.

Maths in the real world

From: Jim Pike, Nursery Close, Leeds.

MAY I add my two penn'orth to Jayne Dowle's Opinion (Yorkshire Post, November 22) and Fiona Lemmon's letter (Yorkshire Post, November 25) about the maths taught in schools.

As a teenager, I was enthused when we were taught the formula "2 pi r" to calculate the circumference of a circle.

As a model railway enthusiast, this was just what I needed.

I could calculate the circumference of a boiler for a model locomotive, and cut my cardboard for a perfect fit.

So that evening I drew out my boiler on card, cut it out, rolled it and glued it, and – it didn't fit.

Next morning: "Please, Sir!" The master explained that pi was only an approximation. "Please, Sir! How does a full-sized engineer calculate the circumference of a boiler?" I was told that he would probably cut a template in plywood, and measure round its edge.

"Please sir! In that case, why are we messing around with "2 pi r" and all that?"

The master's answer had the merit of honesty: "Because you are preparing for the O-level examination, not building model locomotives!"

I have built many miniature locomotives using the suggested method for laying out boilers, and have had a perfect fit every time.

As for the O-level maths exam, I sat it three times, and failed it three times.

Our politicians are blinkered to wider issues

From: T Marston, Acer Court, Lincoln.

SHOULD Mervyn King resign as Governor of the Bank of England because of his off-the-record remarks about George Osborne and David Cameron?

Observing how these two, plus Nick Clegg, approach questions about their policies, I think King was right to say they are more interested in the politics than in the wider issues of matters of state. This is evidenced by their refusal to discuss points raised in questions about their policies and by their habit of launching into irrelevant, time-wasting attacks on policies unlikely to be introduced in the near future.

Further, this blinkered view of issues blinds them not only to the wider implications but also to the facts. Cameron's readiness to dismiss the Schools Sports Partnerships (SSPs), which received funds from the previous government, as a "complete failure", before appearing to change his mind, illustrates this strong weakness. If you Google "SSPs", you get over six million results. Not much activity there!

He lambasted the "fact" that only two in every five pupils are regularly engaged in competitive sport as being proof of an inadequate outcome. With what was he comparing this ratio – if he ever compared it with anything? It just seemed to him a poor ratio and one he could exploit.

In a heyday of school sport, my medium to large boys' grammar school was proud of its sporting prowess and competitiveness. It had four rugby teams and four cricket teams all playing frequently. The total combined squads would number a generous 140 (with some duplication resulting from the all-rounders) out of a school roll of some 660. I make that one in four. Yet Cameron was surely implying that today things were worse – because that suited his party political stance. I find this lightweight in a Prime Minister.

On second thoughts, I think Mervyn King should have his own political comment column in a newspaper. His insights are illuminating.