Who's to blame?

Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey said: "Working people are being asked to pay for the economic mess caused by the greedy City elite whose behaviour this spineless Government has repeatedly failed to tackle."

Chancellor George Osborne said: "We have got to have an affordable public sector, which is why we have had to take very difficult decisions on things like pay."

"In the end Britain has to live within its means. The alternative of bankruptcy would mean we couldn't afford the NHS, we couldn't afford schools, we couldn't afford public sector pensions, we couldn't afford a basic state pension."

Labour leader Ed Miliband said he had "huge sympathy" with everyone who was facing disruption because of the industrial action but refused to attack the strikers - mainly because he said the people who stand to lose most are the low-paid public sector workers.

So, how did we get into this situation? Is it unique? Is it just a British situation?

No, it's certainly not just British - the Greeks face a far worse situation through years of economic mismanagement (known as "ignore the problems"). The US isn't exactly in a great situation either - and let's not look too closely at the rest of Europe.

Has it happened before? Yes - the 1920s and 1930s, the early 1970s, to name just a couple of times. Perhaps it's a feature of the whole economic situation.

Len McCluskey is right - but he is aiming only at the Tories. Spineless attitudes towards the City were a feature of the previous government, too. Gordon Brown actively encouraged the greed as Chancellor and did nothing to stop it as Prime Minister. Maybe he didn't encourage it as openly as Margaret Thatcher long before him, but he did nothing to stop the City and apparently failed to spot the crash in 2008. To say it was only the Tories who failed to curb the City is just plain wrong - but to say otherwise doesn't suit the unions.

And then there are those who blame "the Government". Politicians get on TV to spout policy - but where does the real power lie? A lot is in the hands of the most senior civil servants, who steer the clueless Ministers away from taking unwanted decisions. If you doubt that, watch "Yes, Minister". The story goes that Thatcher liked the programme because she realised how accurate it was.

Now, lest you should think I'm a Tory - I'm not; I hate the public schoolboy politicians' attitudes as much as anyone. Monty Python lampooned their predecessors as Upper Class Twits; not far off the truth - except now it's not the landed gentry, it's those with pots of money. I just recognise that the current coalition is probably the least worst option that came out of the election. I recognise that rampant capitalism and sheer incompetent risk management caused the crisis. It was Greed, pure and simple, taking huge risks that were not noticed by Stupidity. No-one in "government" - national or international - over the last 10 years is innocent. Change must happen, but the voices to be listened to are not the unions - or the politicians - but those who recognise where the financial system is flawed. Yes, we should beat the city slickers over the head until they stop being so greedy; yes, we should demand fundamental changes to financial management; yes, a dose of reality in public finance is needed - and that may indeed mean a worse deal on public pay and pensions than we are used to; yes, tough times are here. But we have to find a way forward - and the loudest voices at the moment are the ones we need to curb. The "Occupy" movement had the right instinct, but the wrong tactics. The unions reacted the way they have been trained to, not the way most likely to help. So, what next?

Answers urgently needed.

Occupy the streets - or change the world?

Much has been written about the Occupy movement - but is the tide turning? There's evidence that cracks are appearing, but there's a long winter ahead.

In US cities, police have moved in to shift the protesters; assorted legal moves have wavered around the occupiers at St Paul's; media articles of all flavours have been published. But what else?

In the UK, many public sector workers (including civil servants) have woken up to the fact that their old social contract has changed. It used to be said that anyone going into public service was faced with this - lower salaries than the private sector, but "jobs for life", annual reviews and (small) increments, and pensions that made up for what they lacked in other ways. The same was true in other countries. What has changed? Jobs for life no longer exist - large numbers of public sector workers have been made redundant or outsourced into the private sector (or both); and now the pensions are hitting reality - the reality that on one hand, there simply isn't the money in the public purse to pay for everyone at the levels previously offered, and on the other hand, private sector pensions have gone down in value, making the old public sector pensions look increasingly out of sync. So, there'll be protests and walkouts, but what will change? Some politicians will make noises; most senior civil servants will keep quiet; and the deal for public sector workers will get worse regardless.

And the bankers and traders? Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citicorp, has offered to meet the protestors, acknowledging a lack of trust in Wall Street. Warren Buffett has said he should pay higher taxes (and has for some time been leading by example that the richest people in society should give up a large part of their wealth to help less fortunate members of society).

But there are still large numbers of city folk who just don't get it and show it by shouting the odds against the protests (and not changing their ways). Here's what John Cassidy, a writer in Fortune magazine, said this week: "For an economic elite whose perquisites ultimately depend on the acquiescence of everybody else, it is a silly and dangerous pose to strike. If only for its own sake, the 1% needs to show a bit of nous." ((c) Fortune acknowledged)

Save the World/Occupy the City

From time to time, people get so fed up with something they have a public protest. Those protests are a chance to let off steam and get the attention of the media. Once in a blue moon the protests actually achieve some sort of change.

What's the latest craze? Occupy the City. How does it work? A bunch of people stand around in or near a financial district and complain that bankers have been bankers. What has happened so far? Some streets have been blocked; some media attention has been grabbed. And now the London variant - some senior church officials have resigned. Why? Because the City of London financial institutions kicked the protesters off their land and those protesters were given temporary sanctuary beside St Paul's Cathedral. Now St Paul's officials have decided that wasn't a great idea - some want to show support against city greed, while others just want the tents to go away.

But what of the protest itself? No bankers have stopped being bankers; no traders have stopped trading. No matter how justified the protest, is the target the church or the City? Do protesters actually have to camp out? What will it take to make a change in society?

High Speed Rail or not?

One of the big arguments in our area just now is whether Britain should build a new high speed rail link (HS2) and whether it should go through the Chilterns. People who live there say no - as they fear disruption, noise and the sight of a railway line through beautiful countryside. But there's another side to it.

My local mainline station is Watford Junction, on the current line to the west midlands and the northwest - often called the West Coast Main Line (WCML). Over the years, our access to the fastest long distance services has diminished. A couple of years ago, Virgin wanted to put in more fast services and they introduced the VHF (Virgin High Frequency) timetable which added those services. The cost? They took away our access to the Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow services and left us with just one Virgin service - an hourly train to Birmingham and Wolverhampton. Why? Because you can't run more fast trains if some stop on the fast line. Now to get to any of the other long distance services we have three options - a slow train to either Euston (in the wrong direction) or Milton Keynes (where they built a bypass line for non-stop trains to overtake those calling there), or a once an hour London Midland (LM) fast service to Milton Keynes. Guess which one most folk use? Yes, the LM fast.

Now what's happening? LM have just said that they want to speed up that once an hour service so that they can squeeze in a second fast service to provide more capacity. How will they do that? Well, part of the answer is that they're going to test run the trains at a higher speed. The other part? Yes, you guessed it - they're planning to take out the Watford stop for exactly the same reason Virgin did. Wonderful.

So the price of more capacity on an already overcrowded line is less service to and from intermediate stations. Journeys will take longer and local trains will be even more crowded.

Now if they were to build HS2, what would happen? Most of, if not all, the fast long distance services would transfer across and the WCML could expand service to the intermediate stations. Guess which station those protesters in the Chilterns use (and would continue to use even after HS2 is built)? You got it - those intermediate stations such as Watford or Hemel Hempstead.