The politics of mineral wealth and the redistribution of that wealth to the people whose country it belongs is a huge and thorny issue that has occupied historians, social scientists and economists for years. It did get me thinking, however. My own work on material culture has not been that focused on exactly where minerals and non-organic raw materials came from–so much was recycled–but it is certainly a subject that requires more historical interest across periods and something I intend to follow up in the future. I have a much better picture of organic raw materials such as wood, linen and silk.

All this just reminded me more of the minerals I miss looking at, handling and studying, shining under UV light, etc. So I thought I’d revisit a set of photos I took a few years back and use them to think about minerals in earnest again.

See my whole Minerals set on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/courgettelawn/sets/1794338/

At a time when it is becoming very clear that the balance of the UK population is towards older age groups, and at a time when the unsustainability of high pensions is clearly going to have a knock-on effect in years to come, why on earth can’t people work longer if they are fit and able to do so? Is retirement a right?

Will I get to retire in 35 years time? Or will it be 40 or 45? I am doubtful as to whether there will be any such thing as a state pension by then. There will be a smaller and smaller number of working age people having to support a larger and larger number of retired people (so-called baby-boomers) many of whom have in fact retired early and therefore will spend between about a quarter to a third of their lives in retirement. Is this really a useful way to spend a human life?

So let us help the aged by encouraging them to keep active and work (or else do what some of them already do and take on essential voluntary roles or impart their knowledge to younger people in their professions).

UPDATE: Sadly the ruling went against those that brought the case. Alas.

There will be some increase in the time for the transition and we can actually ‘enjoy’ the result of our democratic actions last May for a little longer. WC will come into effect after elections in May 2009 with the election of about 98 new members, one for each new ward following a Boundary Commission review. However in the meantime the ‘transition cabinet’ will comprise a majority Tory membership dominated by current county councillors (four of eight).

“We are working really hard to involve as many people as possible in this transition. This is a most important change for Wiltshire and we all want to work together to ensure it produces the very best for Wiltshire residents,” said Mrs Scott, who assured members of the council about the transition.

[From WCC Communication Dept press release]

My request for information about getting involved in new citizen scrutiny groups/community panels, sent to the Communications Dept back in July remains unanswered.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/

At the moment it is very difficult to request certain details about the running of the railways from Network Rail owing to technicalities in the way the body is organised. It is a powerful public body in terms of the influence it has on strategy and direction for the railways yet is not a proper public body and cannot be interrogated as such. Why?

Consider signing this petition in order to place pressure on the Secretary of State and Prime Minister to take a closer look at how Network Rail operates.

TravelWatch have issued a response to the article in The Times in which they say that after a series of talks FGW have agreed to withdraw the threat.

It makes me feel uneasy to think that a company who are clearly profiting greatly from providing a public service feel it perfectly reasonable to make the threat of legal action against the ‘watchdog’ that monitors service and performance on behalf of its customers (passengers). While I do not in any way advocate the incorrect pedaling of ‘facts’ I cannot help but think that this was a muscle-flexing exercise rather than one aiming to reveal the truth.

The daily experiences of those who used services on the First Great Western network in and outside London clearly demonstrate general levels of disappointment at the service provided. It is not possible to measure this ‘accurately’. It is much easier to get worked up about a delay or cancellation than an entire journey that runs on time, makes connections and is on a train with ample capacity for people and luggage, that is clean, not too hot and stuffy and with seats, aisles and windows that are clean and in a good state of repair (and perhaps even with a buffet cart that doesn’t aim to sell you Stella or Coke for breakfast).

All too often the indicators used in creating statistics which measure ‘service’ do not take into account the whole experience of the passenger from buying tickets to arriving at the destination (“that’s a different company, not our responsibility”). Of course reliability and punctuality are fundamental but on whose terms are these measured? At the moment passengers cannot claim any recompense for a delay of less than one hour. Therefore is a service reliable if it gets you to your destination anything up to 60 minutes later than you planned?

Yet we are in a position where we are squeezed into a corner, stuck with arguing about the technicalities of Service Level Commitments, themselves set by people who are unlikely to use the service, nor have made an effort to get to know the communication needs of difference places – or rather they have in terms of consulting with ‘partners’ and ‘stakeholders’ but little is actually acted upon, giving the illusion that views have been taken on board hiding the real desire for providing a minimum service (cheapest) for maximum profit.

Those who set the commitment (government) and those who are charged with providing it (train operators) too frequently pass the buck from one to another when problems are raised with little recourse to users. In addition, those independent bodies such as local authorities and watchdogs claim they have little influence or power to make a difference. So where are the facts in all this? What is the truth of it all and will we ever be in a position to raise criticism, and have it received without it being either stonewalled or countered with legal threats?

Oral Answers to Questions – Wales: Train Services (4 Jul 2007)

Robert Key: The fourth prize in a recent charity auction in my
constituency was a pair of First Great Western first class return
tickets to London. I do not think that I dare travel First Great
Western, but if the Minister would like them, I will gladly give them to him.

Did he accept??

I think among these descriptions, any ought to do?

12 June 2007

Dear Ms Goskar,

Thank you for your e-mail of 14 May to the Minister for rail, about First Great Western (FGW) train services on the Salisbury and Melksham lines. I have been asked to reply.

The Department for Transport specifies a Service Level Commitment (SLC) for a franchise, laying down, among other things, a minimum number of trains on each route, along with early and late services, maximum permissible intervals between trains, maximum journey times, and minimum calling patterns. Provided that it meets the requirements of the SLC, the franchisee may vary train times and amend calling patterns. It may also operate additional services, provided that the track capacity is available, and there is no adverse effect on other rail franchises’ subsidies or premiums.

In 2005 the Strategic Rail Authority (‘SRA’) conducted a public consultation on the structure of train services for the new Greater Western franchise, in which it proposed to reduce the number of calls at Melksham station from five to two per day in each direction, concentrated during the peak hours. The SRA received eight responses about the proposed reduction in services to Melksham. Seven were against the proposals and one in support of them.

While public consultation on the franchise specification was indeed concurrent with the bidding process, the consultation document made it clear that the SRA (and its successor in this function, the Department for Transport) was willing to revise the specification in the light of consultation responses, where there was a financial and economic case for doing so. A number of amendments of this nature were made.

However, given the wide range of other calls on public funds, the Department had to take a view on where the best value for money could be achieved. The services from Melksham are on average lightly used during most of the day and require significant subsidy. In view of this and in the light of the response to the SRA’s consultation exercise, ministers decided to let the Greater Western franchise on the basis of specifying two trains per day in each direction, including on Saturday and Sunday.

The train service specification in the new contract allows the future train operating company some flexibility in liaison with the Department for Transport and industry partners, and in consultation with stakeholders, to decide when exactly trains should run and whether they should stop at certain stations. However, the train operator has only limited flexibility within its contract and, given ministers’ initial decision about the value for money of this service, I should not like to raise false expectations about the likelihood of a significant change in the number of trains operated.

Yours sincerely,

Judith Shepherd

Rail & National Networks Ministerial Liaison Team