medusala said:
a) thats why the title is labour (ie UK labour) and alp. Both are clueless on transport partially because they are beholden to the unions.
Yet I quickly gave you an example of where an ALP government was proactive about transport policy. Let me expand on the coalition in WA with three little examples:
In 1978, the then (Charles) Court government closed down the Perth-Fremantle railway line. It intended to rip up the tracks to replace them with a road. The only excuse you can give them is that maybe people didn't have quite as good a clue about public transport needs at that time.
In 1986 the then coalition government opposition objected to the building of the Perth Northern Suburbs railway on the basis that it followed the line of the freeway, and thus noone would use it instead of getting in their cars. Today it is by far the most utilised public transport link in WA. IIRC they also opposed the electrification process for the urban rail network.
In 1998 the the then (Richard) Court government decided to build the Southern suburbs railway, however rather than use the proven model (along the existing freeway, the shortest route), it elected to build it in such a way the trip was approx 15km longer than it needed to be, and thus similar in travel time to just driving. It also deviated before reaching much of the existing southern suburbs. Additionally, from the end station, the length of the trip was to be 60 minutes rather than 48 under the current plan - a substantial difference.
Add this to the debacle that was the privatisation of bus services in Perth by the same (R) Court government
medusala said:
b) If thats the one thing you know you are in real trouble. Livingstone is back in the labour party and was the official labour candidate for London Mayor (which he won). The govt has allowed the mayor a significant say in the running of transport in London.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/insideldn/politics/politics_060604.shtml
Woohoo. Just because they brought him back into the fold does
not mean its all hunky-dory between the Blair government and Livingston. Its more likely that since he was going to win anyway they decided they might be able to control him slightly better within the party than without. Livingston is staunchly "old" Labour rather than toeing the Blairist "new" Labour line.
medusala said:
c) The transport system under Cain/Kirner was an absolute joke. If Bracks really believes privatisation was so bad then when an operator failed why didnt he take back those services in to public ownership?
Well I've got the impression it certainly didn't improve under Kennett, so what's your point?