MP shows a lack of understanding

Labour leader Ed Miliband’s attempts at policy making are half-hearted says our lead letter writer

Labour leader Ed Miliband’s attempts at policy making are half-hearted says our lead letter writer

First published in Letters by

HOW disheartening that Hugh Bayley praises employers paying the living wage rather than expounding on the need for a living income.

This lack of understanding of the hardships facing many working-class people is highlighted by Mr Bayley’s support for food banks, when he should be outlining his ideas for ridding from our country the scourge of poverty and lack of disposable income.

His apparent keenness for charity rather than dignity for the working class is emphasised by him begging Government to provide money for food banks to give job search advice.

How patronising.

But should we expect anything different from career politicians? I think not if Ed Miliband’s half-hearted attempts at policy-making are anything to go by, especially his insistence that austerity is here to stay.

It could be speculated that if Mr Bayley and New Labour had got their way people desperately seeking food, work, shelter and cash would have been stigmatised further, being added to a national database for ID/entitlement cards. Or is that still to come, Hugh?

End of term report for New Labour... must do much better, see working class for advice upon return from your taxpayer-funded long summer hols.

Tom Scaife, Manor Drive, York.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:04am Thu 24 Jul 14

The Great Buda says...

What a strange letter.
What a strange letter. The Great Buda
  • Score: -11

1:31pm Thu 24 Jul 14

sounds weird but says...

The Great Buda wrote:
What a strange letter.
Not that strange really.

My interpretation of this is that instead of pushing or generating charities to 'deal' with a lack of disposible income, there is a lack of policy changes at the top that will create a more prosperous economy that people can make a decent disposable income from themselves..?

That is not strange at all, rather people want to be dignified and independant, rather than being totally dependant on 'handouts'
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: What a strange letter.[/p][/quote]Not that strange really. My interpretation of this is that instead of pushing or generating charities to 'deal' with a lack of disposible income, there is a lack of policy changes at the top that will create a more prosperous economy that people can make a decent disposable income from themselves..? That is not strange at all, rather people want to be dignified and independant, rather than being totally dependant on 'handouts' sounds weird but
  • Score: 13

5:41pm Thu 24 Jul 14

A.P.Feeders says...

I think the letter writer is spot on our mp mr bayley has done nothing for creating proper jobs in York just low paid tourism work plus no one listens to him in government anyway we deserve better
I think the letter writer is spot on our mp mr bayley has done nothing for creating proper jobs in York just low paid tourism work plus no one listens to him in government anyway we deserve better A.P.Feeders
  • Score: 13

8:32pm Thu 24 Jul 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal .....
Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal ..... oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 13

3:42am Fri 25 Jul 14

ms baldy locks says...

i once met hugh bayley at his office on holgate road. his secutary didn't have shoes on. his 'office' smelt like a bin and mr bayley couldn't even bare to shake my hand.... though he did get my 8 week over due dole money back!
i once met hugh bayley at his office on holgate road. his secutary didn't have shoes on. his 'office' smelt like a bin and mr bayley couldn't even bare to shake my hand.... though he did get my 8 week over due dole money back! ms baldy locks
  • Score: 5

8:08am Fri 25 Jul 14

CaroleBaines says...

The Great Buda wrote:
What a strange letter.
Not really. Most Labour voters will recognise something in it. I know I do and its rather sad. We have so little choice now between the three main parties; same message just packaged in a different colour.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: What a strange letter.[/p][/quote]Not really. Most Labour voters will recognise something in it. I know I do and its rather sad. We have so little choice now between the three main parties; same message just packaged in a different colour. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 8

8:59am Fri 25 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal .....
I am not at all sticking up for our lazy MP here but -

Yet again, the rabid Press commentators getting carried away with themselves.

Care to highlight for us this "colossal" "damage" ?
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal .....[/p][/quote]I am not at all sticking up for our lazy MP here but - Yet again, the rabid Press commentators getting carried away with themselves. Care to highlight for us this "colossal" "damage" ? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -8

12:29pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Jonothon says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal .....
Yeah, Buzzz asks the right question. I would like to See Hugh Bayle boiled in oil (metaphorically) chiefly for his craven attitude to the leadership and the whips, most noticably over The Iraqi bloodbath
However "colossal damage to the city" . I challange you to substantiant that, Sayeloy.

just more right wing mudslinging I imagine
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal .....[/p][/quote]Yeah, Buzzz asks the right question. I would like to See Hugh Bayle boiled in oil (metaphorically) chiefly for his craven attitude to the leadership and the whips, most noticably over The Iraqi bloodbath However "colossal damage to the city" . I challange you to substantiant that, Sayeloy. just more right wing mudslinging I imagine Jonothon
  • Score: -8

12:49pm Fri 25 Jul 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal .....
I am not at all sticking up for our lazy MP here but -

Yet again, the rabid Press commentators getting carried away with themselves.

Care to highlight for us this "colossal" "damage" ?
My gripe with Bayley is over a 7.5 billion Train order gifted to Hitachi in 2009 by the labour government due to certain safeguards being omitted from the contract, certain safeguards that the German and French governments put in their contracts when putting out to tender. York could once again be on the map as a train building city, at the time we had the empty workshops and we still had/have the skills base, but no, he then went onto lie in this very paper about the order in question being "gifted" by the tories to the order winners, that maybe not "colossal" to you, but the loss of a chance to regain our train making heritage is "colossal" to me!

As for the leftwing lunatic below you in this thread..... YAWN!!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: Hugh Bayley is an absolute moron! the letter writer is spot on! the damage this man as done to York is colossal .....[/p][/quote]I am not at all sticking up for our lazy MP here but - Yet again, the rabid Press commentators getting carried away with themselves. Care to highlight for us this "colossal" "damage" ?[/p][/quote]My gripe with Bayley is over a 7.5 billion Train order gifted to Hitachi in 2009 by the labour government due to certain safeguards being omitted from the contract, certain safeguards that the German and French governments put in their contracts when putting out to tender. York could once again be on the map as a train building city, at the time we had the empty workshops and we still had/have the skills base, but no, he then went onto lie in this very paper about the order in question being "gifted" by the tories to the order winners, that maybe not "colossal" to you, but the loss of a chance to regain our train making heritage is "colossal" to me! As for the leftwing lunatic below you in this thread..... YAWN!! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 10

1:42pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Jonothon says...

As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2 Jonothon
  • Score: -8

2:20pm Fri 25 Jul 14

A.P.Feeders says...

Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract A.P.Feeders
  • Score: 12

2:22pm Fri 25 Jul 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr
ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;)
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;) oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 13

2:27pm Fri 25 Jul 14

oi oi savaloy says...

A.P.Feeders wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract
Well said , the point at the time was , he wasn't interested and sent out a simple letter from Adonis just quoting EU procurment rules, and the other thing was why did Bayley come to the press and make a statement about this same contract and actually lie saying it was gifted by the tories? i still have the letters from Bayley dated April 2009.
[quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract[/p][/quote]Well said , the point at the time was , he wasn't interested and sent out a simple letter from Adonis just quoting EU procurment rules, and the other thing was why did Bayley come to the press and make a statement about this same contract and actually lie saying it was gifted by the tories? i still have the letters from Bayley dated April 2009. oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 12

4:40pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Jonothon says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr

ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;)
So different things in different postings this time you say "i know york was never considered"
And earlier you said the opposite, Here are your exact words "York could once again be on the map as a train building city "

Please re-think it all.
Here is your problem, you want to have a pop at Hugh Bayley but you have no case, so you blame him not getting something which was only ever going to go to Derby whatever Bayley did. It's nowt to do with him.
Why not blame the MP for Derby?
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;)[/p][/quote]So different things in different postings this time you say "i know york was never considered" And earlier you said the opposite, Here are your exact words "York could once again be on the map as a train building city " Please re-think it all. Here is your problem, you want to have a pop at Hugh Bayley but you have no case, so you blame him not getting something which was only ever going to go to Derby whatever Bayley did. It's nowt to do with him. Why not blame the MP for Derby? Jonothon
  • Score: -12

5:24pm Fri 25 Jul 14

rat scabies says...

Jonothon wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr


ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;)
So different things in different postings this time you say "i know york was never considered"
And earlier you said the opposite, Here are your exact words "York could once again be on the map as a train building city "

Please re-think it all.
Here is your problem, you want to have a pop at Hugh Bayley but you have no case, so you blame him not getting something which was only ever going to go to Derby whatever Bayley did. It's nowt to do with him.
Why not blame the MP for Derby?
Forgive me if I've got this one wrong, but i think what Mr saveloy is saying is if Hugh Bayley had have got is finger out and thought York's corner the Agility Trains order could have been placed in York, therfore putting York back on the map as a railway city, as he states in one of his posts three sites were originally considered, York was not one of them.
The big question is why was York not one of those original sites? Why did Bayley not argue Yorks case? I also sent an email to Hugh about this order, I got a letter back basically saying if I thought York had a case I was to contact Agility , signed A. Adonis (sent to me by Hugh Bayley).
I am of the opinion he would gladly see us all on 'the living wage' selling ice cream and what not to tourists.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;)[/p][/quote]So different things in different postings this time you say "i know york was never considered" And earlier you said the opposite, Here are your exact words "York could once again be on the map as a train building city " Please re-think it all. Here is your problem, you want to have a pop at Hugh Bayley but you have no case, so you blame him not getting something which was only ever going to go to Derby whatever Bayley did. It's nowt to do with him. Why not blame the MP for Derby?[/p][/quote]Forgive me if I've got this one wrong, but i think what Mr saveloy is saying is if Hugh Bayley had have got is finger out and thought York's corner the Agility Trains order could have been placed in York, therfore putting York back on the map as a railway city, as he states in one of his posts three sites were originally considered, York was not one of them. The big question is why was York not one of those original sites? Why did Bayley not argue Yorks case? I also sent an email to Hugh about this order, I got a letter back basically saying if I thought York had a case I was to contact Agility , signed A. Adonis (sent to me by Hugh Bayley). I am of the opinion he would gladly see us all on 'the living wage' selling ice cream and what not to tourists. rat scabies
  • Score: 13

5:50pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

A.P.Feeders wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract
It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now.
I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".
[quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract[/p][/quote]It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now. I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight". Pinza-C55
  • Score: 3

6:35pm Fri 25 Jul 14

A.P.Feeders says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
A.P.Feeders wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract
It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now.
I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".
Yes that is true but a wagon works is not a carriage works.all part of brel once upon a time none the less and like when York closed the workers would have had to travel further a field to get work it's just a shame that our mp for York couldn't press the case of what York had to offer as someone pointed out he is a lazy mp
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract[/p][/quote]It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now. I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".[/p][/quote]Yes that is true but a wagon works is not a carriage works.all part of brel once upon a time none the less and like when York closed the workers would have had to travel further a field to get work it's just a shame that our mp for York couldn't press the case of what York had to offer as someone pointed out he is a lazy mp A.P.Feeders
  • Score: 12

10:15pm Fri 25 Jul 14

oi oi savaloy says...

Jonothon wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr


ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;)
So different things in different postings this time you say "i know york was never considered"
And earlier you said the opposite, Here are your exact words "York could once again be on the map as a train building city "

Please re-think it all.
Here is your problem, you want to have a pop at Hugh Bayley but you have no case, so you blame him not getting something which was only ever going to go to Derby whatever Bayley did. It's nowt to do with him.
Why not blame the MP for Derby?
Re-think? Re-think what? are you really that stupid ? it wasn't about Bombardier losing the order, it was about Agility getting the order and then not even considering York as a place to build the Trains, this is my last post on the subject , so i am only going to say this once more, we (York) still had the empty sheds, we (York) still had a very large young skills base I.e. coach builders ,fitters, electricians, and coach painters, so why did Hugh Bayley not fight our corner? Therefore putting York back on the map as a train building city? Shildon was (as being pointed out) , a wagon works, totally different skills to building train carriages and still a good few miles from Newton Aycliffe, and shut down a good few years before York works, and a lot smaller work force (i.e. fewer apprentices coming through) . And if i didn't have a case, why did Hugh Bayley then get in touch with the press sometime after Labour lost the last general election and blatently lie about the tories 'gifting' (his words) this order to Agility? (That's me done on the subject) .
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]Er , i know York was never considered, i work on the railways, i know Derby have the skills and the workforce , i have worked at Bombardier in Derby and Horbury. the argument was about the 3 sites that were earmarked at the time, Ashby de la Zouch, Gateshead & Sheffield, 3 places without the workshops, 3 places without the skills needed, at the time as stated in previous comment , we had the empty workshops and the skills, Agility could have brought that order to York, that was the whole discussion with Bayley, not just by me but a whole bunch of ex carriage work employees and union members, why was York not even considered? as it is Bayley again settled for sending out a letter from Adonis ,and that is what it as to do with bailey, and one more thing, tell me why did bailey lie about this same order being gifted by the tories? as it is they will be now getting built at Newton Aycliffe, and York will just carry on with Tesco/sainsbury/Morr ison mini marts and the rest of the low paid jobs, but you know what bud? i aint too bothered anymore, York can carry on as it likes, cos i am retiring in the not too distant future ;)[/p][/quote]So different things in different postings this time you say "i know york was never considered" And earlier you said the opposite, Here are your exact words "York could once again be on the map as a train building city " Please re-think it all. Here is your problem, you want to have a pop at Hugh Bayley but you have no case, so you blame him not getting something which was only ever going to go to Derby whatever Bayley did. It's nowt to do with him. Why not blame the MP for Derby?[/p][/quote]Re-think? Re-think what? are you really that stupid ? it wasn't about Bombardier losing the order, it was about Agility getting the order and then not even considering York as a place to build the Trains, this is my last post on the subject , so i am only going to say this once more, we (York) still had the empty sheds, we (York) still had a very large young skills base I.e. coach builders ,fitters, electricians, and coach painters, so why did Hugh Bayley not fight our corner? Therefore putting York back on the map as a train building city? Shildon was (as being pointed out) , a wagon works, totally different skills to building train carriages and still a good few miles from Newton Aycliffe, and shut down a good few years before York works, and a lot smaller work force (i.e. fewer apprentices coming through) . And if i didn't have a case, why did Hugh Bayley then get in touch with the press sometime after Labour lost the last general election and blatently lie about the tories 'gifting' (his words) this order to Agility? (That's me done on the subject) . oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 5

7:38am Sat 26 Jul 14

Jonothon says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
A.P.Feeders wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract
It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now.
I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".
My point exactly Pinza. The whole history of York's vanishing industrial base is a tragedy for the city, Rowntrees, The carriage works, the Glass factory, Terrys. It has been a long process which started with Thatcher's belief that Britain should move into service industries at the expense of manufacturing. That is why Tory MP Conal Gregory applauded the closure of the glass works as an "opportunity for York"
It is a process spanning decades and administrations from both Tories and Labour and it invidious to lay the blame for part of the process at the door of an individual MP.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract[/p][/quote]It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now. I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".[/p][/quote]My point exactly Pinza. The whole history of York's vanishing industrial base is a tragedy for the city, Rowntrees, The carriage works, the Glass factory, Terrys. It has been a long process which started with Thatcher's belief that Britain should move into service industries at the expense of manufacturing. That is why Tory MP Conal Gregory applauded the closure of the glass works as an "opportunity for York" It is a process spanning decades and administrations from both Tories and Labour and it invidious to lay the blame for part of the process at the door of an individual MP. Jonothon
  • Score: -3

7:41am Sat 26 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

A.P.Feeders wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
A.P.Feeders wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract
It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now.
I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".
Yes that is true but a wagon works is not a carriage works.all part of brel once upon a time none the less and like when York closed the workers would have had to travel further a field to get work it's just a shame that our mp for York couldn't press the case of what York had to offer as someone pointed out he is a lazy mp
The Shildon wagon works built the wagons from the ground up. My understanding of the Hitachi factory is that the trains will simply be "fitted out". In any case the York factory closed so long ago that I'm dubious whether any of the former workers are still available and I doubt whether York as a whole has the "skill set" to do this kind of work any more.
[quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract[/p][/quote]It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now. I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".[/p][/quote]Yes that is true but a wagon works is not a carriage works.all part of brel once upon a time none the less and like when York closed the workers would have had to travel further a field to get work it's just a shame that our mp for York couldn't press the case of what York had to offer as someone pointed out he is a lazy mp[/p][/quote]The Shildon wagon works built the wagons from the ground up. My understanding of the Hitachi factory is that the trains will simply be "fitted out". In any case the York factory closed so long ago that I'm dubious whether any of the former workers are still available and I doubt whether York as a whole has the "skill set" to do this kind of work any more. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

9:56am Sat 26 Jul 14

roy_batty says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
A.P.Feeders wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
A.P.Feeders wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley

York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time
“We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."

Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley?
Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with.

So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2
The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract
It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now.
I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".
Yes that is true but a wagon works is not a carriage works.all part of brel once upon a time none the less and like when York closed the workers would have had to travel further a field to get work it's just a shame that our mp for York couldn't press the case of what York had to offer as someone pointed out he is a lazy mp
The Shildon wagon works built the wagons from the ground up. My understanding of the Hitachi factory is that the trains will simply be "fitted out". In any case the York factory closed so long ago that I'm dubious whether any of the former workers are still available and I doubt whether York as a whole has the "skill set" to do this kind of work any more.
Nothing simple about just fitting them out, Bombardier at Horbury just fitted them out, the shells were brought over from Belgium, and the shells are the easy part, jig built and welded together. And most people in a wagon works would have been fitters and welders , with little finesse.

And lots still available, the last apprentice came out of his time in the 90's , it's only been 18 years since the closure, lots of ex shed men now commuting up and down the country to various depots would give their left testicle to get an engineering job in York, and they are still working with the "skill set" as you put it, i myself commuted to Plaxton, then Bombardier and then the Neville Hill Depot until being one of the lucky ones and finding one of the few remaining engineering jobs on the railways in York.

I myself would have even thought about going back if this came to York, and it would have been a great opportunity for younger people in York wanting an apprenticeship in an engineering environment, but alas no.

Back to the letter and the letter writer speaks the truth, James Alexander is of the same ilk, he spouts on about #jobsandgrowth on his twitter account, when most of the jobs are very low paid tourism/supermarket jobs offering only part-time work and his major coup is Hiscox, again offering very low pay, well below average .
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.P.Feeders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: As I thought, another load of old tosh from the Saveloy about Hugh Bayley York was never even considered a contender for the 2009 train order. I have checked . The only company who could have fulfilled this order is Bombadier, and they were in Derby, not York. Even the rail unions knew the order could only be fulfilled at Derby, The late Bob Crow of RMT said at the time “We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby." Question. What has it got to do with York, and what has it got to do with Hugh Bayley? Answer. Nowt. It's not about getting at the truth, its about Saveloy desperately searching for a stick to beat Hugh Bayley with. So time for another stab at it Saveloy, what is this "colossal damage2[/p][/quote]The point he is trying to make and I can't believe you don't understand it is that the trains are going to be assembled in Newton aycliffe where there is no previous train manufacturing skills available why couldn't our mp have pushed for the hitachi factory come to York where all the skills are readily available it's that simple but the truth is no one listens to hugh bayley and it was a labour government that awarded the contract[/p][/quote]It's not strictly true that there was no previous train manufacturing base in Newton Aycliffe since there used to be the Shildon wagon works but I guess most of the former workers are knocking on a bit now. I agree that Hugh Bayley has no influence on finding jobs, in fact I would say that no politician of any hue has any influence at the local level. If jobs come they take the credit, if jobs don't come they say "Ah, we put up a good fight".[/p][/quote]Yes that is true but a wagon works is not a carriage works.all part of brel once upon a time none the less and like when York closed the workers would have had to travel further a field to get work it's just a shame that our mp for York couldn't press the case of what York had to offer as someone pointed out he is a lazy mp[/p][/quote]The Shildon wagon works built the wagons from the ground up. My understanding of the Hitachi factory is that the trains will simply be "fitted out". In any case the York factory closed so long ago that I'm dubious whether any of the former workers are still available and I doubt whether York as a whole has the "skill set" to do this kind of work any more.[/p][/quote]Nothing simple about just fitting them out, Bombardier at Horbury just fitted them out, the shells were brought over from Belgium, and the shells are the easy part, jig built and welded together. And most people in a wagon works would have been fitters and welders , with little finesse. And lots still available, the last apprentice came out of his time in the 90's , it's only been 18 years since the closure, lots of ex shed men now commuting up and down the country to various depots would give their left testicle to get an engineering job in York, and they are still working with the "skill set" as you put it, i myself commuted to Plaxton, then Bombardier and then the Neville Hill Depot until being one of the lucky ones and finding one of the few remaining engineering jobs on the railways in York. I myself would have even thought about going back if this came to York, and it would have been a great opportunity for younger people in York wanting an apprenticeship in an engineering environment, but alas no. Back to the letter and the letter writer speaks the truth, James Alexander is of the same ilk, he spouts on about #jobsandgrowth on his twitter account, when most of the jobs are very low paid tourism/supermarket jobs offering only part-time work and his major coup is Hiscox, again offering very low pay, well below average . roy_batty
  • Score: 5

2:10pm Sat 26 Jul 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

And Ed Miliband has flown to Washington DC for a 20 minute talk with President Obama. On his agenda for discussion was 'Climate Change.' Imagine that, the man responsible for legislating Green taxes including airport tax, flying all that way for a 20 minute chat !Fuel poverty and Miliband are closely linked. just wait till the lights go out.
And Ed Miliband has flown to Washington DC for a 20 minute talk with President Obama. On his agenda for discussion was 'Climate Change.' Imagine that, the man responsible for legislating Green taxes including airport tax, flying all that way for a 20 minute chat !Fuel poverty and Miliband are closely linked. just wait till the lights go out. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 3

3:41pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

So, as we already knew - Hugh Bayley has been lazy, lacklustre and not at all spectacular in sticking up for York.

Again, how exactly does that equate to "colossal damage?"
So, as we already knew - Hugh Bayley has been lazy, lacklustre and not at all spectacular in sticking up for York. Again, how exactly does that equate to "colossal damage?" Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -5

10:05am Mon 28 Jul 14

TheTruthHurts says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
So, as we already knew - Hugh Bayley has been lazy, lacklustre and not at all spectacular in sticking up for York.

Again, how exactly does that equate to "colossal damage?"
I guess it depends on each persons idea of colossal?

For me it is like the earth being hit by a massive meteor or something.

To others it might be having a couple of hairs out of place? Its all in the mind :-)
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: So, as we already knew - Hugh Bayley has been lazy, lacklustre and not at all spectacular in sticking up for York. Again, how exactly does that equate to "colossal damage?"[/p][/quote]I guess it depends on each persons idea of colossal? For me it is like the earth being hit by a massive meteor or something. To others it might be having a couple of hairs out of place? Its all in the mind :-) TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree