Leave Wakefield Westgate Alone

This blog runs the risk of becoming a diatribe against the great British railways. I've previously written about my loathing of HS2 and the problems that could arise from closing small ticket offices. Today, as George Osborne announces money going towards rail infrastructure projects in Yorkshire, I have a new gripe.

£6.6 million is being given to Wakefield Westgate station to rebuild and refurbish. You'd think I'd be happy. I use the station several times a week, after all, and theoretically it should be in Wakefield's best interests to have it rebuilt. However, I don't believe it is.

The idea to 'move' the station down a few yards was mooted years ago. It was accepted that it would finally be done and then the refurbishment plan disappeared from the Network Rail website and everything went quiet. For the last few years Wakefield Council have been insisting that the work would happen while the transport authorities have just blanked the idea. If the original suggestions are being used then (in my understanding) the station would be moved along a bit. For Wakefield people, it would be moved slightly further away from Westgate bridge and towards the Balne Lane bridge. This was fine when the plans were first suggested. But I see one major flaw here: they've since built a hideously ugly multi-storey car park near this area. They can't just pick it up and move it so does that hamper plans? These are the details already announced by the local paper: "New shops, a travel centre, a First Class lounge, a customer reception and information screens will be developed at a brand new station building. It will be built next to the multi-storey car park which opened last year to provide better access." See my next point.


Secondly, I'm happy to admit that Wakefield Westgate is not a hub station. The majority of people who get on and off the train don't wait around for a connecting service. It's a destination, that's all. As such, I believe the station as it is can cope. You don't have too many people hanging around and the services it's got are sufficient: cash machines, shop, cafe, toilets ticket offices, information desk along with first class and regular waiting rooms. It might be a little scruffy but it's hardly in the direst of circumstances. I wonder if the powers that be are merely trying to make the station look more attractive to businessmen travelling through from Leeds. Quite an expensive vanity project if they are.

Finally, there is the most important point. Wakefield has two railway stations and this one isn't the one desperate for a bit of TLC. Wakefield Kirkgate has been the scene of at least one serious sexual assault in recent history and is an unmanned eyesore. It does, however, offer a direct Grand Central service to London. The problem is, no one will dare risk going via that station because of the dangers. Wakefield Kirkgate is the closer station to the new Hepworth Gallery and refurbishment of that could easily help visitors to the attraction. The waterfront area nearby has also been heavily redeveloped recent years: why not build a station to go with the new prosperity of the area?

So, you see, I'm not saying no money for Wakefield's rail system. I'm just asking for it to be put in the right place and to help local people in favour of anyone else.

The Future State of Welfare with John Humphrys - Complaint Response

Like many other people I was incensed by the above programme. It was a shoddy piece of journalism, focused on furthering the government agenda and not on protecting the claimants in this country. I dread to imagine how much more difficult the lives of disability claimants have become since the programme aired, especially those without visible disabilities. I shot off a complaint to the BBC as soon as I'd watched the programme and today I received a response. It may be a stock one sent to dozens of complainants with a few alterations but I'll share it anyway:

Dear Miss Brown


Reference CAS-1069807-F832D5


Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC Two’s ‘The Future State Of Welfare With John Humphrys’ on 27 October.


I understand you felt the programme was biased against the welfare state.


We believe that 'The Future State of Welfare' was a balanced look at the benefits debate in the UK. The programme dealt with a difficult and important subject - and the strong opinions held about the issues raised by the current proposals for reform. The impact of current policy and proposed reforms was shown through John's interviews with individuals who have experience of the system both here in the UK and in the USA. The programme featured interviews with various individuals who claim different types of benefits, and gave them an opportunity to set out their views on the proposed reforms. John conducted these interviews with sympathy and sensitivity and enabling those affected to show how they felt the proposed reforms would impact upon their individual situations.


With regard to recent changes to incapacity benefit and the assessment of recipients to determine whether or not they are entitled to receive the benefit, the programme made it clear that requests to film the assessment process had been refused. However, the programme acknowledged that the process of assessment could be distressing for those involved. When John spoke with Yvonne Power, who ultimately won her post-assessment appeal and was granted ESA, she clearly outlined how upsetting she had found the assessment process.


Both the BBC and John Humphrys consider the programme to be a success - it challenged preconceptions while remaining a balanced and accurate analysis of both emerging policy and public opinion in this highly contentious area.


Nevertheless, we’ve registered your comments on our audience log for the benefit of programme makers, commissioning executives, and senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape future decisions and they ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are made available to BBC staff across the Corporation.


Thanks again for contacting us.


Kind Regards


Stuart Webb
BBC Complaints 

In my complaint I pointed out that figures on the number of Atos Healthcare judgements overturned on appeal were not highlighted. I judged this to be a vital omission because inclusion would've highlighted the illegitimacy of the system currently reassessing people for benefits. Wouldn't it have been in the public interest for the BBC to point out that these appeals are costly and the correct judgement should be reached in the first instance and not the second? Also, a few case-studies of people sent for these hideous assessments would not have gone amiss.


The BBC will maintain they're right until Chairman of the BBC Trust and former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Chris Patten, tells them otherwise. Welcome to the new legitimate victimisation of our vulnerable citizens.

A Word To Ed Miliband

I'm very anti-EU. This statement won't be a surprise to anyone who's scanned this blog or my Twitter feed. In fact, I'm quite boring on the issue. However, that isn't the point of this post. It isn't really about the essence of the debate last night which led to the public being denied a referendum on our continued EU membership. I could go on and on about David Cameron's heavy-handed tactics when it came to his backbenchers or Nick Clegg's support for a project rapidly going down the toilet but I want to focus on our worthy leader of the opposition: Mr Ed Miliband.

From the moment the result of the vote was announced last night, Miliband - there's no other way to say it - gloated about the fact that David Cameron couldn't control his backbenchers. He gloated. He believes that politicians should serve a party leader and not their constituents. His words, quoted by the Telegraph, were: "The problem with the Prime Minister is that he's spent the last six years putting his party interests before the national interest." Who is Miliband to say what's in the national interest when he just denied the people a say in their own destiny? When asked why he opposed a referendum he said, "At this time of all times for Britain to be looking inwards and renegotiating whether we're in Europe or outside Europe would be the wrong step." In Miliband's opinion it would be the wrong step. But last night wasn't about the opinion of the political class in this country. It was about the wider public being offered the chance to have a say in where a huge proportion of their money goes.

What David Cameron did on the referendum issue was unforgivable. But I'd argue that what Ed Miliband did was worse. Miliband seems pleased that the electorate has been denied a voice. Something in me recoiled from him last night. It's one thing to have a viewpoint on an issue which perhaps contradicts the popular consensus: it's quite another to deny those people a voice because you know what the outcome will be. I am sick of politicians believing they know what's best for us. If that was the case then they could have allowed this issue to go to a referendum and would have been able to convince us that being in the EU is good for our economy and stability. They knew they couldn't prove such an outlandish theory so they blocked us. All three parties stood in a row and told the people to get lost.

Ed Miliband has no hope of winning an election while he so mockingly ignores the will of the people. He's scored a few political points against David Cameron. I hope he's content with that because I have the distinct feeling that's all he'll gain in the next five years.

A Lesson in Ticket Offices

Another day; another proposed cut. It has been reported that up to 675 ticket offices at small railway stations may be closed down. Passengers would be expected to buy their tickets at machines in the stations. Anybody who has used one of those machines knows that, occasionally, they fail to work (four times thus far for me) and they rarely assist new users in finding their way around the system. I've used them at stations such as Darlington, Middlesbrough, Thornaby, Wakefield Westgate and Derby so I consider myself well-seasoned, but sometimes they even manage to frustrate me. The back-up of being able to queue at the ticket office if the machine fails is rather an invaluable one. Let's take two examples of small train stations from my own experience.

Thornaby is a small station which is closer to Stockton-on-Tees than it is to Thornaby. The station is serviced by Northen Rail trains travelling between Saltburn and Darlington and First Transpennine Express trains between Middlesbrough and Manchester. It has two platforms and a ticket office in the centre of them. It's a small oblong building with a small waiting room, a ticket machine and two windows at the bottom - a ticket office and what used to be a snack shop (I'm not certain if it's still there). There's a toilet around the back of the station which, if you ask nicely, the man in the ticket booth will give you the key for. The service at Thornaby is highly personal. They used to employ one man only to cover the place, which was enough to cover the duties necessary. I used to queue behind many people wanting detailed advice on journeys or a conversation about railcards. They may not have had the capacity to check online or just wanted advice about it from a human being. It's understandable and, at Thornaby, it worked. I can imagine it's the same for a lot of smaller stations. If you take away the ticket office, you'll also lose the waiting room no doubt. That could prove to be a difficulty, especially on those cold winter nights I used to commute on.

Wakefield Kirkgate is a wreck of a station. It has been the scene of one serious sexual assault due to the fact that it has an underpass leading from one platform to the other. There are probably dozens of unreported smaller crimes which have occurred there. It is unmanned and there is a regional campaign to get it staffed again. Grand Central trains stop there on the way to London. Cheap tickets are often advertised on billboards around the town but no one wants to take advantage of them because of the reputation as a 'rape station'. If Kirkgate was a viable option for trains going towards Leeds it may even ease congestion on the overstretched East Coast trains going from Wakefield Westgate.

If you allow a station to become unstaffed it can lead to the kind of situation we have at Wakefield Kirkgate. Demand on our railways will lessen, yes, but no doubt road congestion will increase. If there was a visible presence at Wakefield Kirkgate station then the public would feel a lot safer. I can't help thinking that we're sacrificing security for the sake of a few pounds. And all this when we're shelled out billions on HS2 which will do nothing for the economy or regional growth.

English Speaking Country

One of the hot topics at the moment is a case brought by a woman with UK residency who wants to bring her husband over from India. The trouble is, he doesn't speak English and the rules brought in last year mean that an ability to speak our native language is a prerequisite of entry to this country. I think for most people that is considered to be a reasonable compromise.

The wife has lived here for several years. She claims that this decision breaches her human rights because she is entitled to a family life. Yet again, the spectre of the European Convention on Human Rights looms large. But, speaking through a translator because she was shy of her own English skills, she freely admitted that her husband has no intention of learning English when he gets to this country. She says that at 58 he is too old to learn a new language. She suggests she'll be able to get him a job at the factory where she works - but I sincerely doubt that. What employer is going to risk employing people without a basic grasp of the English language? They won't, if they're cautious in any sense. And, if they do, that's placing both employer and employee in a precarious position.

At first I thought this story was a simple one of location - he lived in a rural village and couldn't get access to a language teacher. There were ways around even this - supply the husband with language tapes or the wife herself could teach him before he came over here. Perhaps I was not so adverse to allowing him into the country if he was going to make an effort to integrate when he got here. But he won't. Which inevitably means more pressure on our public services. Even if he doesn't claim benefits there is still the difficulty of going to see a doctor and needing a translator in order to have a conversation. He will live a very isolated life, communicating with only the people who speak his native language. As a commentator on Radio 2 just pointed out, this will lead to more ghettos and more segregation, which does our fragmented society no good in either the short or long term.

It's painful that EU open border rules mean that we have to accept Europeans into our country, no matter what their language status. This makes it seem unfair, as if we are discriminating against countries outside the EU. This is one of the woman's claims - that we are treating her differently because of her ethnic background. One way out of this, of course, is to take full control of our borders by escaping from the EU - but that's a separate issue.

It has been pointed out that many Brits who retire to other countries don't bother to learn the language there either. That's wrong too. We should practice what we preach and the joy of learning a language is a wonderful thing. I don't know why anyone would enjoy being isolated from the people around them.

Farewell 2,500 Police Officers

The shocking headline about the full impact of police cuts has thankfully not been masked by the on-going phone-hacking scandal. That (however important) story has so far covered up the first rumblings of movement to outside providers in the NHS and the ever-increasing concern about the future of the Eurozone. Luckily, these police figures haven't slipped into the ether.

34,000 jobs in total are to be lost from our police service by 2015. 16,100 will be police staff, admin workers etc, and up to 1,800 will be community support officers. The rest will be police officers, 2,500 of which are considered front-line. We were assured that front-line services would be shielded from the cuts as much as possible. Losing police officers from our streets doesn't exactly tally with that, does it?

Look at the scenario. While cutting the number of police officers you are also cutting the number of admin staff. Doesn't this leave many of the remaining officers with piles of administration to do themselves? Yes, the Coalition have pledged to cut red-tape and admin wherever possible - and this is long overdue - but it is not going to happen overnight. Unless you can convince hapless bureaucrats to concede that all paperwork is not essential then the problem will continue. And, as things stand, as well as losing police officers, the ones left will be devoting extortionate amounts of time to tasks that keep them from the streets.

What about the bigger picture? Research suggests that burglary and robbery statistics could rise by 3%. It's not difficult to see why. Few jobs are being created in this country and, when they are, 80% of them are going to people born outside of the UK. While I'm not suggesting that unemployment leads directly into crime, it is easy to see how desperation may escalate.

Cuts need to be made. We're told this so often that our ears ache. But reneging on promises to protect front-line public services is not going to inspire public confidence in the people running our country. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, believes that the cuts to the budget doesn't necessarily mean that front-line services have to suffer. As with many of these cuts, the government blames ideology for the way cuts are implemented - it is political point scoring they say. Every time a Labour council is forced to cut services, a Tory council proudly asserts that they kept they services running. Of course, this has nothing to do with many Labour inner-city constituencies being deprived and Tory areas being affluent. Who could suggest such a thing?

Repeatedly, the country tells our officials that we want them to be tough on crime. An outcry against trimming prison sentences won a change of heart. How is taking police officers from our streets or forcing them to do more paperwork being tough on crime?

Telegraph article.

Guardian article.

David Laws

Now, don't think for one minute that I approve of extravagant expenses claims from MPs. As far as I'm concerned, the guilty ones should be put in a gigantic duck house and floated out to sea. And, hopefully, a sea creature will take a liking to them and save us the trouble of having to clear up the mess afterwards. However, I do have sympathy for David Laws, even when it emerged today that he has been found guilty of breaking parliamentary regulations. The full report will be published on Thursday but Twitter is currently slamming him through a grinder and I wanted to voice some support.

My attitude towards Lib Dems as a rule at the moment is... strained. I want to punch the screen every time I see Nick Clegg's ghostly face appear on it; I loathe Danny Alexander for his arrogance and/or stupidity. As for Vince Cable... Well, I have respect for the man's politics but I do wish he'd make a stand on occasion. He's terribly uncomfortably in the Coalition, a condition that is plain for anyone to see, and not standing by his principles is unforgivable. David Laws, it'll be remembered, was a prime engineer behind the Coalition negotiations - but let's not hold that against him. Even I have to admit that some things the government are doing are well-intentioned, if badly implemented. And that's the point on which I feel Laws could've helped. As crazy as this may sound under the circumstances, I trust the guy in matters of politics and finance. I also believe that, had he not resigned as Chief Secretary, the noises coming from the Treasury would've been a lot more palatable. Danny Alexander is almost incompetent, and his shocking arrogance makes him even more unappealing. If Nick Clegg is set on repeating that Lib Dems did not go into politics to make cuts, he better make sure Alexander is in earshot because he's towing the wrong party line.

David Laws is a competent and talented individual who made an error of judgement. He didn't intend to profit by it; he just wanted his private life to be kept private. If I recall correctly, even his family didn't know that he was gay. No self-righteous person can stand there and criticise a situation like that. Laws apologised for his act and stood down right away - a lesser man would've waited to be pushed. We've all seen the blustering of Jim Devine and Elliot Morley as they tried to wriggle out of punishment. I would argue that Laws's immediate resignation (and silence as the investigation was going on) puts him in a completely different category to the aforementioned ex-MPs.

I don't expect many people to agree with me. A lot of people on Twitter are content to hang him out to dry. Me? I want him back in the cabinet where he can actually salvage something of the mess Clegg and company have got the Lib Dems (and the country) into.