I don’t have a car, I have a wardrobe full of wintry garb and I still hold onto a childlike wonder when the ground is suddenly covered in a white blanket. Consequently, it’s been a good weekend for me but it would of course be a different story if I was camping out in an airport without a pillow or a blanket (white or otherwise) to keep me comfortable throughout the night, as many have been doing overnight from Gatwick up to Aberdeen.
The lack of information coming from the airports is making the headlines but problems exist at a lower level up and down the country across buses, undergrounds, motorways and town streets. Could more have been done? Is there a Government strategy for this entirely foreseeable scenario or is ‘do nothing and bear it’ as good as it gets?
It is difficult to avoid drawing comparisons with the events that let up to the Scottish Government’s Transport Secretary having to resign last week – a short, sharp wintry burst and transport suddenly slipping into meltdown (if you can forgive the double pun). Now, there are potential differences between what is happening in the UK this week and what happened in Scotland last week, ignored reports and looked over weather forecasts for example. However, it is perfectly reasonable to point the finger at Stewart Stevenson’s equivalent in the coalition Government, Lib Dem Minister Norman Baker, and ask what it is that he is doing. A quick Google search has shown that his name isn’t in any of the main news articles on this snowy Sunday. Is Norman going for that ‘do nothing and bear it’ laissez-faire strategy that contributed to Stewart Stevenson’s undoing? Hopefully he is just too busy for his office to send out a press release.
Remarkably, the BBC are questioning Scottish correspondents on whether the new Transport Secretary is doing any better in Scotland without even mentioning what the UK Minister is doing for the rest of the UK. Media pressure is, of course, a significant contributing factor in any Ministerial resignation.
I personally believe that the coldest, the snowiest and the iciest December we have seen for many years will inevitably come with travel problems and it is for individuals, not Governments, to take decisions for themselves and then deal with the consequences that follow. There are many reasons to resign from a Government but a fallout from the fickle Mother Nature shouldn’t really be one of them.
That said, Norman Baker threatened to resign over tuition fees, he could have arguably resigned over implementing rail fare rises after campaigning on reducing them and now, if Scotland is anything to go by, he may have to show some true grit to plough his way through this current situation.
Anyway, wellies and mittens on for me and I’m off to build a snowman, or just steal one again…
#1 by Douglas McLellan on December 19, 2010 - 11:59 am
Miaow. Does your wintry grab contain a cat suit complete with claws?
I dont think that Stevenson had to go but his handling of the situation (or lack therof), associated with a position that constantly changed (didnt know, did know, kind of knew) meant that he became a story. I was in the BBC offices on Tuesday and every time someone from the SNP stated that information had gone out and that Ministers had given comments on national radio there were howls of contempt at the bare faced lie as their news programmes had heard zip from the Government.
As you undoubtedly know, Stevenson was the Cabinet Member for Transport. As you also undoubtedly know yet neglect to mention above, Norman Baker is not.
Why not grow up a bit? And google Philip Hammond.
#2 by Malc on December 19, 2010 - 12:06 pm
I too, was a bit puzzled why you had it in for Baker and not Hammond. Care to elaborate?
#3 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on December 19, 2010 - 1:19 pm
Lib Dem Minister Norman Baker doesnt have to do anything he just blames Stewart Stevenson or the next snp fall guy.
lets be honest Alex Salmond could stop the freezing weather
tomorrow if he wanted it just suits the snp not to do anything.
They just point the finger at English weather forecasters
#4 by Grownup on December 19, 2010 - 1:52 pm
Yes, this Baker guy better hurry up and do something.
It doesn’t really matter what – for example perhaps he could adopt a serious expression, don some hi-vis and parade around next to some snow clearing equipment. Or maybe the spoiled children of voting age would be placated to see him bunk down on a camp bed ‘near the action’ in a situation room. As long as it mollifies the screaming weans that seem to populate the country these days, always on the lookout for an authority figure who isn’t visible enough, we’ll know we’re well governed.
#5 by Lost Highlander on December 19, 2010 - 3:07 pm
Maybe im going to be a bit radical.
But can we blame the Goverment either Scottish or British about the weather just what can they really do. The people who should be blamed are those who go out in conditions they do not really understand in vehicles not suited to that travel.
How can we blame the goverment when tempatures stay below the tempature that road salt works at or that unprepared vehicles slow traffic down or jacknife resulting in long queues of traffic which since the road is blocked cannot allow vehicles in to fix the initial problem. Especially when people unprepared abandon there vehicles so no matter if the problem is fixed it takes hours to get abandoned cars out of the way.
Airports cannot have planes landing if there is a risk that they will simply skip off the runway or as the real problem has been found they cannot taxi around once they leave that cleared runway.
But what we can do is unfortunatly painful to us the public. If it becomes mandatory that winter tyres are used then we in the public will have to suffer that cost. If it becomes as it seems every year recently worse then we will have to increase the use of 4×4 vehicles and possibly give tax breaks to allow there purchase.
But what we really should do is to accept that it is personal responsibility that puts people on the roads and in the airports if the weather is such that things go wrong it is not right to blame the goverment just take it on the chin.
#6 by KBW on December 19, 2010 - 3:36 pm
Good time line of events here:
http://tinyurl.com/28ys8k4
From it can be seen that the BBC are lying and mounted a vendetta to “get” the SNP, assisted by their unionist zombies of the press pack.
They have now moved on to try and whip up hysteria about Student fees, see Kenny Gibson destroy them here:
http://tinyurl.com/2v934k2
Does any one know of a minister resigning any where in the world because of bad weather?
Gatwick shut. Heathrow shut. Stranded motorists overnight on the M6/M4/M25/M62. German railways had stranded passengers over night. Poland has had over 30 fatalities during the same spell of weather. American Midwest closed.
Stewart Stevenson’s remarks were used out of context against him, the BBC are a joke.
From what I have seen on the blogs and heard on the street, it has all gone badly wrong for the BBCs vendetta as their is no support for their lies and propaganda.
SNP support continues to climb as does support for independence.
VOTE SNP FOR SCOTLAND
#7 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 3:37 pm
Yeah, ok, I thought there was an angle to work with here but in retrospect it is at best tenuous.
It says it all that I thought Norman Baker is the senior Transport Minister rather than this Philip Hammond chap.
Ah well. I do still think it’s unfortunate that BBC is pushing to ask if Keith Brown is doing all he can when same question isn’t asked of UK equivalent.
#8 by Douglas McLellan on December 19, 2010 - 3:54 pm
Something that the ‘SNP-does-everything-perfect-and-if-you-cant-see-that-you-are-a-unionist-zombie’ brigade seem to have missed is that on Monday there was precious little news coming out from Government and that despite the obvious problems and mistakes Stevenson said that the response had been first class.
If he had been on the airwaves during the day stating the police are doing everything they can and then stating that the response had been poor and that operational groups like councils and police are going to get their heads bounced off each other to find out why not then he would have been ok. But he didnt. He didnt see that there was a problem. He didnt see that he should have been seen to acknowledge the problem and didnt see that he is in a position to ask those that had allowed the problem to develop why it did and what they were going to do about it in future.
He didnt cause the snow but he was not on top of the issue as it arose. Thats why he became a target.
#9 by Grownup on December 19, 2010 - 5:25 pm
So basically, the solution to this particular resigning offence was to have done some good PR – show your face on the media, and direct blame other authority figures? And if you do that, then you don’t need to resign?
“he should have been seen to acknowledge the problem”? F***ing Dianification bollocks mate.
What a shallow idiot-pandering business is politics.
#10 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 7:36 pm
Well, Hammond has shown his face on the media and it hasn’t done him any harm. He made a fine point that we have to decide whether we invest more in Winter Defence Tools (I’m sure he used a better phrase) or whether this weather is too freak and rare to invest too much money over what won’t happen very often.
I do hope that Hammond (or Baker) is hammering BA and East Coast’s phones to make sure that communication improves though.
#11 by Douglas McLellan on December 19, 2010 - 10:42 pm
Three words. First. Class. Response.
It wasn’t. I said he should not have gone. But he got things wrong over several news cycles so became the story. And pretty much all politicians either step up and do brilliantly (Nicola Sturgeon and writing to the courts) thus continue in post or need to step down to change the story (Stevenson).
But yes, politics is a shallow idiot pandering business. But thats because a fair chunk of the population are shallow idiots.
#12 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 11:14 pm
Can’t argue with any of that. You can’t argue in theory within a world of ugly realities I suppose.
#13 by Erchie on December 20, 2010 - 12:31 am
Thee words.
“Referred to responders”
i.e. to the work the services were doing to handle the situation which came on them unpredicted by the Met OFfice
Which the BBC, the public broadcaster, wasn’t on top of
IT was the services of the police, council workers etc Mr Stevenson was referring to, even though any response was hampered, as it has been now in England, and was then in other nations, because once the cas are on the road how do you teleport ploughs to where they are needed?
Still waiting for the “better response” that the other parties seem to think they have, but for some reason they are keeping it to themselves
#14 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 7:38 pm
Fair point Douglas. Can’t really argue with that.
The only comparison that can be made from a UK context is Philip Hammond’s assurance that this is a freak snowstorm. That comment may come to be regretted as don’t these delays happen every year? Every other year at least.
#15 by Erchie on December 20, 2010 - 12:32 am
Not a fair point, not fair at all.
You’ve been told this already and you also do not explain what should have been done apart from Mr Stevenson being more telegenic
#16 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 6:15 pm
to be fair, the longer this day drags on, the more valid this post becomes.
Government-owned rail franchise East Coast is now suspended between Peterborough and London and there is zero communication coming down the lines to tell people what is happening and what their options are. As a stranded person on the BBC said, “it’s not rocket science”, just tell us what’s happening.
I had a similar issue yesterday on the tube, though nowhere near as severe, standing at a Circle Line platform for 20 minutes with the only announcement being that the distant Bakerloo line was not running. In the end I wandered off (on a 2 hour route home, a journeyt that usually takes 20 mins). Problems arise but it should always be possible to get the communication down to those who need it and that’s not happening on trains, planes and underground.
I’d put money on Hammond being first Minister to resign.
#17 by Douglas McLellan on December 19, 2010 - 10:56 pm
If he does go (and he will be the next, not the first. David Laws was) it will be due to some unforeseen fury at the High Speed 2 route. At the moment a handful of Tories are against it but the Cabinet is for it so he should be OK.
If the snow gets worse and Hammond is not seen to be doing anything then he may go. But as long as he is on the air, demanding action and condeming the failures of others there will be no real bloodlust for him. Like Boris Johnson I assume he as had a terse conversation with the head of BAA.
Thing is, Scotland is a very small place and I know two people unconnected apart from knowing me, in separate cars, who were caught in that traffic. Both voted SNP in 07 and 10 (and will do so again as their are both nationalists despite my best efforts) but, dear Lord, they were furious when they got home and Stevenson did not even appear to know how bad things were.
I also think that there is a difference between rail and roads. If there are rail delays I dont expect the government to tell me what is going on (publicly owned or not – I dont expect Vince Cable to tell me my bank balance so that link is false) but the roads in Scotland are publicly owned and maintained so there is an expectation that the government keep people informed.
A comparable example was the total cock up of opening Terminal 5. I dont recall anyone demanding the sacking of whoever was airports minister at the time.
I still think this was a tenuous post at best and more a reaction against what happened to Stevenson rather than an attack on Baker/Hammond.
#18 by Douglas McLellan on December 20, 2010 - 12:54 am
I am not venturing into contradicting myself but I think that Hammond needs to be very pro-active now with the situation at Heathrow. As I have said, being seen to be doing nothing or mis-understanding the situation is fatal for a politician.
Who knows Jeff. This post might just have come a day early (with the wrong Minister mentioned but we can let that one go).
#19 by Over-tired toddler on December 20, 2010 - 10:53 am
“I’d put money on Hammond being first Minister to resign.”
OK, I still don’t subscribe to this premise that ministers are these Great Helmsmen for whom all bucks must instantaneously migrate to, and stop.
As to what is going on with the railway line. I would guess that it’s related to the cold weather we’ve been having. Are the railway employees mindless zombies who must bear no responsibility for communicating with their customers? Must a govt minister immediately wade in and deal with their negligence (if there has been any) in a highly public and media-friendly fashion. I wish it weren’t necessary.
What worries me is that in the blanket, febrile “OMG Who’s Fault Is It?” atmosphere that descends during these things, actual genuine incompetence gets missed, since a scalp MUST be claimed, regardless of fault.
#20 by Observer on December 19, 2010 - 7:54 pm
No one from the UK govt has faced the same prolonged hostility from the state broadcaster as faced Stewart Stevenson.
I agree he didn’t handle it well but his UK counterpart hasn’t even faced it so how do we know how he would react?
It’s the fact that the BBC led the baying mob against Stevenson that is the worrying bit. The BBC is supposed to be politically impartial, Lord Reith will be spinning in his grave as it is clearly not.
#21 by Richard Thomson on December 20, 2010 - 2:07 pm
Reith probably wouldn’t be spinning in his grave. As he wrote in his diary regarding the Corporation’s coverage of the General Strike once the Government had decided not to take editorial control: “they know they can trust us not to be really impartial”
It seems we can still trust parts of the BBC not to be impartial when it really counts.
#22 by James on December 20, 2010 - 2:30 pm
I’d like a citation for that quote which doesn’t come from Media Lens. Wikipedia quoting some blog or other doesn’t count. Ponting’s name is associated with it. Not saying it isn’t true, just unsubstantiated to me.
#23 by Richard Thomson on December 20, 2010 - 3:04 pm
Page 96, The Reith Diaries, Charles Stewart (Ed), Collins, 1975. It’s a diary entry for 11 May 1926.
It’s also on page 29 of this: http://bit.ly/eBdJvW
#24 by John Ruddy on December 19, 2010 - 8:36 pm
If you want to attack Hammond, how abotu this?
After last winter, Labour started an inquiry into what went wrong, and what could be done differently. This report concluded in the summer, and the interim report landed on Philip Hammonds desk in July. It contained some simple quick things that could be done to improve the response to sudden bad weather, including improving levels of salt stocks.
So far, Philip Hammond has acknowledged the report, but his repsonse to the current bad weather? To ask Philip Quarmby, the author of Labours Winter resilience review, to, err, conduct another review.
#25 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 8:50 pm
To be fair, a higher level of salt stocks wouldn’t make much difference. 30 tonnes of snow on each individual aeroplane spots takes a lot of shifting. Pouring salt on it wouldn’t do anything.
If Labour’s old report only talked about grit then I can understand why Philip has asked for another report on new ideas and significant investment. Of course, he may well be hoping that the report says investment isn’t necessary to (1) save money and (2) save his behind in future years.
#26 by cynicalHighlander on December 19, 2010 - 9:47 pm
What I find disturbing in this that the main highways maintenance was privatised yet no one have taken them to task on their part both north and south of the border. Surely one has to tackle local authorities on how they liase with these private companies as well because that is where the basic problem arises.
#27 by Over-tired toddler on December 20, 2010 - 10:59 am
Is it the case that private firms are responsible for decisions on how to clear the snow from roads? If not, and I doubt it, then this is a red-herring. Comforting perhaps to look for a privatisation angle, but unconvincing.
#28 by Indy on December 20, 2010 - 10:13 am
The difference is explained entirely by the political situation – minority government and all that. This situation has existed since May 2007 obviously and it is a remarkable fact that the combined Opposition has only managed to gang up on SNP ministers twice. I think the political skills of SNP ministers like John Swinney have overshadowed how precarious the SNP’s grip on power has always been. However establishing a precedent of resignation over a poor performance on Newsnicht is pretty daft and the media may come to rue the day if ministers simply refuse to go on programmes like that in future.
#29 by Indy on December 20, 2010 - 12:27 pm
BTW Douglas regarding the first class response remark – are you saying that the response has been poor? Leave aside the M8 scenario – which was caused by a combination of unforeseen circumstances – have the emergency services failed at any level? Have ambulances failed to get through? Have hospitals closed or been so understaffed that they have had to cancel urgent procedures? Have medical supplies failed to reach pharmacies? Have pharmacies failed to deliver medicines to people who need them? Has any area of the country run out of fuel? Has any area of the country lost electricity for a significant period of time? How many serious traffic accidents have occurred due to the weather? Has there been any loss of life as a direct consequence of the weather conditions?
You might want to ask yourself some of these questions because, much as it was unfortunate that people found themselves stuck in traffic for a long period of time, that’s not the end of the world. I’ve heard people describe the conditions as a “national emergency” or a “natural disaster”. That is rubbish. Not getting your Xmas presents delivered in time is not an emergency and not being able to get away on holiday is not a disaster. Let’s keep a sense of perspective.
#30 by Douglas McLellan on December 20, 2010 - 4:20 pm
I keep saying this. I didnt think he should have had to resign. All I am doing is saying why he did. He got himself into a position that he became the story. Mandy should not have resigned on the second occasion but had become the story so had to. Its the same here.
Stop having a pop at me (when I dont deserve it – I am fair game most of the time).
#31 by Observer on December 20, 2010 - 1:10 pm
This is the thing that Labour maybe haven’t thought through.
They attacked Mr Stevenson for his ”first class response” – but the emergency services did provide a first class response.
They do this all the time – they criticise civil servants, they criticise the Scottish Prison Service, they criticise people in all sorts of operational positions in order to attack the SNP.
Do they not consider that the people they are trundling over in order to make a political point might take the huff?
#32 by neil craig on December 20, 2010 - 6:36 pm
For years the politicians, keen for more control of us, have told us we are facing catastrophic global warming & that snow would be so extraordinary that by now children would never have seen it. That being the case any transport minister in either Holyrood or Westminster who had spent money on bulldozers, gritters etc would have been crucified.
We now all know that while “catastrophic warming” represents the very pinnacle of honesty to which any of the thievihg parasites aspire it is a total & deliberate lie.
#33 by Jeff on December 20, 2010 - 9:19 pm
I’m no expert Neil but my understanding was always that climate change would make weather more extreme rather than simply ‘warmer’. The current weather could be classified as extreme and the evidence that summers are getting warmer, icecaps melting and hurricane season is pretty strong. Perhaps not incontrevertible but I don’t think a Transport Minister would be ‘crucified’ by a self-respecting Green for tooling up for the colder Winters to come.
#34 by John Ruddy on December 20, 2010 - 11:04 pm
In fact, a warmer world would obviously mean a wetter one. After all most of the earths surface is covered by water, so more evaporation. And of course, what goes up, must come down. So more precipitation.
Now, we are in a cold spell, but this winter could still be warmer than average (certainly 2010 was the hottest year on record for January-October), but precipitation at or below zero degrees equals snow. And if you have more precipitation, you get more snow in winter.
#35 by Indy on December 20, 2010 - 10:49 pm
Neil you are entirely wrong. Anybody who has read anything about global warming knows that it does NOT mean that everywhere will become uniformly hotter. Indeed the worst case scenario for northern Europe as a result of melting polar ice caps is a new ice age (did you miss the Day After Tomorrow? Lol)
This is primary school stuff these days – I suggest you need to catch up and understand the basics of climate change before attempting to criticise the science.
#36 by John Ruddy on December 20, 2010 - 11:09 pm
Did anyone catch the programme on BBC one this evening about the winter crisis?
I missed it, but from the trailers i’ve seen, its mostly about laying the blame at the Government for not doing enough in response vis-a-vis the road and rail networks etc.
Seems to me that the UK bit of the BBC is doing to the UK Government what BBC Scotland did to the Scottish Government. Its probably just biased against Transport Ministers, so its nothing personal.
#37 by neil craig on December 21, 2010 - 10:41 am
There is no reason whatsoever why weather should become more “extreme” due to warming Jeff. Not if the warming is eqjual everywhere as CO2 warming would have to be. Only temperature diferentials would do that.
John you are absolutely right about increased rain. This is why during the Climate Optimum there were hi[p[popitamus in the middle of the Sahara. This has always been part of the argument that “catastriophic global warming” would be beneficial. However more reain is not the same as more snow which is why the government eco-f—— said that by now children would never have seen it.
Lady it is not my fault that primary schools are indeed becoming centres of eco-f—– brainwashing. I wish they were for education. The fact is that if it were getting warmer it would be getting warmer. Because our media have been silent on it you are clearly unaware that there has been unusual amounts of snow from Nazareth to Japan. Your kniowledge of “the science” clearly does not come from any source understanding scientific principles.
#38 by Indy on December 21, 2010 - 3:21 pm
No Neil – the surface temperature of the planet is undeniably becoming warmer. Nobody questions that. You have to distinguish between weather events and climate – they are not the same thing.
#39 by neil craig on December 21, 2010 - 4:20 pm
I think it is actually possible to deny it. Indeed I do.
You show that the eco-N—- are simply religious nutters like those who say it is “undeniable” that Jesus/Zeus/Marduk exist because the sacred book says so.
Perhaps you agree with that fraudster Hansen that those who do not accept the world is catastophically warming should be imprisoned until they accept the party line. I disagree.
#40 by James on December 21, 2010 - 4:53 pm
And with that latest round of nonsense I’m closing comments on this post.