No choice about this dire train service

I HAD the misfortune to travel on the 17.29 train from Leeds to Horsforth last Thursday. This is the busiest service of the day out of Leeds towards Harrogate.

On this day, the company operating the service could only manage to provide its long-suffering passengers / customers with two carriages.

I managed to get a seat because I placed myself “logistically” on the platform. Conditions were squalid.

There was some poor young mum with a baby in a buggy in the forward door area, and her baby had to suffer the indignity of having a bicycle wheel literally inches from her face.

As I have pointed out previously, one of the hallmarks of Northern is its complete inability to communicate.

On this service, there were no apologies from the conductor. On arrival at Horsforth, I mentioned the dreadful service to the conductor, who was a pleasant, civil young man.

He agreed completely with my comments about the service. Although he didn’t say so, he was clearly embarrassed by the company’s total inability (or unwillingness?) to even attempt to provide an even remotely acceptable level of service.

I await a public explanation as to why Northern cannot – and will not – try to offer their passengers what they pay for.

Finally, I also find it amusing the conductors invariably say at Leeds: “And thank you all for travelling with Northern today”.

We travel with Northern because we do not have a choice. If the travelling public had a choice, I am sure that most would choose any other operator.

Reckless Labour’s debt

From: Alan Chapman, Beck Lane, Bingley.

THE report under finance entitled “Toughest squeeze on families in 90 years” (Yorkshire Post, April 11) made grim reading.

Doubtless, the massive national debt is playing a significant part. Yet it could have been very different. Can you imagine what it would be like if the UK owed £100bn less?

In the autumn of 2008 when banks were failing or panic- merging, the Conservative Opposition in Parliament urged the Labour government not to expand borrowing, but to commence moderate reductions in expenditure. To sensibly keep the country’s finance sound and within manageable proportions. Some moderate pain then would have meant significantly less today.

However Gordon Brown’s Labour Party and his finance team at the Treasury, including the two Eds, Balls and Miliband plus Alistair Darling, did just the opposite.

Why were they so stupid? Simple. There was a general election approaching, and wanting to avoid temporary unpopularity, Labour was prepared to risk the nation lock stock and barrel to try and retain their slimy grip on power.

Staying safe on nights out

From: H Marjorie Gill, Clarence Drive, Menston.

TOO often, we read about some poor woman or girl who has been murdered or assaulted on the way home from a night club or girls’ night out by walking home alone in the early hours of the morning. Families and friends wring their hands, but don’t they ever think of the dangers and tell their loved ones before they have a drink to arrange a safe taxi or lift home?

Surely it is in the interests of nightclub owners to make sure that vulnerable females get home safely and it would behove them to have a prominent list of respectable taxi cabs to ensure this problem is solved?

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have loud alarms strapped to one’s body in the event of attacks? I know people are silly, but worried parents could keep of pile of cuttings from the newspapers to stress their point.

One of the most stupid arrangements in my opinion is the habit of using an iPod to listen to loud music when travelling alone, which makes one extremely vulnerable to any predator.

In my opinion, it should be banned as a selfish and irresponsible act after dark, but I suppose that would be a step too far, much better be a statistic on police files instead.

MP’s cavalier response

From: Tom Howley, Marston Way, Wetherby.

AFTER publication of my letter “Welcome U-turn on NHS reform” (Yorkshire Post, April 9), I contacted my MP, Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell), by email, suggesting that he should consider the points which I had made regarding the NHS changes and on the students’ fees to be imposed next year.

I asked him to clarify a policy decision on the position of students from deprived backgrounds who would not be called upon to pay a fee, but who achieved a good degree and would be recruited to a highly-paid job at the end of their studies.

Mr Shelbrooke replied with a single line to say that my comments had been “noted”.

“Noted” is an expression to indicate that the recipient of an appeal for advice or comment is not interested in assisting, or, perhaps, cannot be bothered with trivialities.

A new member of Parliament, Mr Shelbrooke must quickly learn that his constituents cannot not be treated in such a cavalier manner, and that their views and opinions should be awarded respect.

Over two Parliaments, I penned many letters to former Elmet MP Colin Burgon, often criticising Labour. He never failed to reply, often challenging my views – and sometimes agreeing with me – in a courteous and patient fashion.