Yahoos turn Manchester Metrolink into a playgound! Is this why the trams are under-used?

For well over decade there's been questions asked about whether public trams are cost effective and value for money. Some believe they are too costly and underused and a bit of a white elephant.

In an interview in August 2016, Kieran Quinn, the leader of Tameside Council, in Greater Manchester, told a local journalist that the Manchester Metrolink was chronically underused and inconvenient: "I did the tram journey once to go to Oldham. It was a lovely day out, but you need a picnic and butties to survive it."

As a user of  public transport, I would normally go by train or by bus. However, I recently travelled from Ashton-under-Lyne to Manchester by Metrolink. The tram takes around 40 minutes to arrive at Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester after departing from Piccadilly Station. The trams are clean and reasonably comfortable and the pace is leisurely.

Yet, it didn't take me long, to discover why the public might be discouraged from travelling on the  Metrolink. In a word the problem can be summed as Yahoos or Yobs. The first time I got on the tram in Ashton, a group of yobs were climbing all over the seats and hand-rails like a bunch of monkey's and letting off the tram alarms. The driver spoke to them twice but didn't tell them to get off and they generally ignored him and carried on regardless. I then got off the tram having decided to travel by bus because there would be less hassle.

Two days ago,  I travelled to Manchester from Ashton during the afternoon. The journey to Manchester was perfectly fine and there were no incidents. On returning, there was a group of youths stood near to me who were swearing and shouting at one another. Passengers just looked on bemused or tended to ignore what was going on. At Clayton Hall, a scrofulous looking Manchester youth alighted, and then threw something into the tram, kicked the door and deluged us in a  shower of  expletives. When the tram sped off, I said to a passenger in front from of me, "Is this why the trams are chronically underused?" she just looked at me and smiled.

At Ashton, I complained to the driver who was sympathetic and understanding when I told him that I would probably use the train or bus in future to travel to Manchester. I told him that these kids had turned the tram into a playground and were being allowed to get away with it because there was no guard. He then told me that two weeks ago, when driving from Ashton to Manchester, stones had been thrown at his tram, breaking his front window, and cutting his face. The burly tram driver told me, that they were not allowed to touch the kids because they would get fired. Apparently, they can't even ask them to get off the tram.

A bus driver later told me, that he'd spent five miserable years driving trams in Greater Manchester and that it had been almost a nightmare. He said that he'd been told that in the event of an incident, he should lock himself in the drivers cabin and leave the passengers to their own fate.

Yahoos waiting for Metrolink

I was once told by canal users who traversed the Huddersfield canal from Manchester through Ashton to Stalybridge that they called it 'bandit' country because disgruntled youth's often hurled stones at their barges from the canal towpath. Now they're throwing stones at trams and trains. I suppose one could blame this sort of mindless vandalism on all  manner of things - lack of discipline in schools and homes, the follies of youth, poor education, the welfare state or that useless public-school half-wit, David Cameron, who told us all "to hug a hoodie."

Yet, in Liberal capitalist societies, like Britain, there's an implicit belief in the inherent rationality of the individual. Society is seen has being composed of rational, selfish individuals, who are naturally competitive and spend their time pursuing their own self-interest. Material comfort is preached as life's ultimate aim. I suppose that if you tell people there's no such things as society, only individuals, then one ought to expect the worst from them. But there can be no such thing as the individual without society and one based solely on enlightened self-interest, as Thomas Carlyle, pointed out, would not be a society or community, but an aggregate of egoists.

Even the classic liberal, Friedrich von Hayek, believed that rational behaviour was only possible because people voluntarily, if subconsciously, accepted social norms. "Custom and tradition stand between instinct and reason", said Hayek. Needless to say, most of us know that people do not always act rationally. We can see this when we go out for drink on any Saturday night, in any town in across Britain, and see the lager louts.

The ancients seemed to have put their finger on the problem. As the Roman playwright, Terence, tells us: "We all grow worse if we are given too much license." Therefore, If we want kids to behave on public transport then the way to do it, is to do what they used to do with us, when we were kids who misbehaved. Tell them once, and if they continue with bad behaviour, put the little bastards off the tram or bus, and let them walk home or to school. The worst thing you can do is mollycoddle them. Hopefully, they'll get the message.

Redistributing wealth the Tory way!

It's said that politically, government's can get away with murder in England. There may be many reasons for this -  the English education system or even something they put in the water. But it may also be due to the fact that the English are by and large, a politically passive nation of people who dislike politics and  also distrust politicians. In comparison, French and Spanish workers are far more militant and politically aware.  The English also seem to suffer from a kind of atrophy of the will, which leads to a feeling of powerlessness and alienation that makes many believe, that they are powerless to influence events or unable to stop them. More astute observers of English society than me, have pointed to other reasons. When he was once asked what the population of England was, the Scottish historian, Thomas Carlyle, replied: "Thirty millions, mostly fools." The eminent English writer, William Makepeace Thackeray, also thought that the English were essentially stupid people.

When one considers what the present government are getting away with, it does make you think that both these writers have a point. While Britain's MPs get gold plated pensions, twenty weeks paid vacation a year and unlimited paid sick days, the rest of us, are told we will have to work longer and for less. If this isn't taking the piss, than I don't know what is.

The government welfare bill which was passed by the House of  Commons earlier this month, will limit rises in working-age benefits to 1% for the next 3 years in order to save £3.1 bn by 2016. More than 60% of those who will be hit by the benefit and tax credit cap, are people who are in work. Indeed, 93% of new housing benefit claims are from people who are in work but who cannot afford to pay their rent because their pay is so low.  The Cameron government say that they cannot afford the high cost of welfare but have nevertheless, given a £3bn-a-year tax cut to some of the highest income earners in this country. Just 8,000 millionaires, are now due to receive an average tax cut of over £107,000.

As the government cuts taxes for the rich, it increases taxes on the poor and those in work, and cuts state benefits and public services. It's not the rich or the bankers who are paying for the financial crisis but people on state benefits and those working within the public sector who have lost their jobs as public services have been cut and closed. Though some people do  protest about the injustice of all this, you've got to hand it to the Conservatives, they certainly know how to look after their own - the wealthy and privileged.  But what would you expect from a government of multi-millionaires and a party who according to the economist and philosopher F.V. Hayek, are the "defenders of established privilege."

While British attitude surveys have shown a  marked decline in support for redistribution since the mid-1980s, the Cameron government are certainly in favour of redistribution for their aristocratic friends and wealthy chums. Many public bodies are now packed with capitalist cronies who make substantial donations to the Conservative Party and many MP's of all parties, now hold lucrative positions on their boards. The management consultants KPMG and McKinsey have been awarded lucrative contracts from NHS reforms and did draft many of the proposals in the government Health and Social Care Bill. Since being appointed Chancellor, George Osborne has signed off over 61 PFI deals that ultimately will cost the British taxpayer around £35bn.

Another nice little earner for wealthy landowners and Conservative supporters is the payments they receive from the E.U. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), under the 'single payments scheme'(SPS). The SPS is an award for owning land and the more you own, the more you receive. Although the Cameron government have lobbied unsuccessfully for a substantial cut in the CAP budget - which swallows 43% of the EU budget -  they have demanded that the E.U. drop a proposal to limit the amount that a landowner can receive.

Many British people will be under the impression that the main beneficiaries of this scheme, are French rustic farmers with smallholdings. But this is not the case. According to a government database, the entire budget is shared between 16,000 people or businesses and this includes some of the richest landowners in the country such as Cameron's father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield. In 2010, the former Chairman of Northern Rock, Matt Ridley, received £205,000 from the taxpayer for owning the Blagdon estate. The Duke of Westminster, received £820,000. Every household in the UK is paying an average of £245 to some of the richest men and women in this country and the government is now trying to get the EU to restore 'headage payments', which were phased out in 2003. These are payments which a farmer receives for the number of animals in his fields. The Cameron government have justified these claims on the grounds that it would help to protect the environment and encourage the 'consolidation' of landownings. Yet 69% of the land in the UK is owned by just 0.6% of the population which means Britain has one of the highest concentrations of land ownership on earth.

Today, due to the policies adopted by both Labour and Conservative governments over the last 30 years, Britain is less equal in wages, wealth and life chances, than at any time since the 1920s and British children's achievements is more closely linked to parental status than in most developed countries. For many people in  this country, capitalism has failed to deliver jobs and decent wages and welfare has been the prop that has been used to augment poverty pay.

Last month, the Office for National Statistics (ONS), disclosed that the top 10% of households were now 850 times wealthier than the bottom 10% of people in the UK. According to the figures, the richest 10% of households in this country, own 44% of the national assets. The report also disclosed that half of UK households have just £400 in net cash at hand, compared with the £123,200 in cash balances held by the top 10% of households.

At a time when the richest people in this country are getting richer, we are seeing falling wages, increased unemployment and debt and a rise in food banks, which are helping to feed people in need, including families with adults in work, and increases in child poverty. In Manchester, 42% of the city's under 18s are according to the Manchester Evening News (MEN) living in poverty.