The poor are not sending their kids to public school are they.

For many it’s wanting things to be like some mystical past that never really existed.

Yes this was kind of what I mean- there are those who want an electrified low carbon future of bigger state investment - others are far more into rural conservation. All parties have splits but as greens get into power they look more paralysed by it.

His knee is pretty high up.

He wound the French up (okay it’s not that hard) using quotes he never actually said.

I think it’s a bit of everyone “targeting” him- but not sure it really works, he enjoys it.

Greens will spilt eventually I think. No way the rural ecologist types will still with Polanski.

Exeter has been done over here.

It’s a schools thing.

A lot of that is.

How do you suggest we keep loss making shops open? Or prevent other uses of the same premises?

We pay for public services for the public good yes. But are you saying we should pay to keep high street shops open if they are not profitable?

Or more precisely why do we want to keep something nobody is using? And does that our way the real cost of utilising land that could be used for something else?

Ultimately you need enough income to pay your costs. Companies can’t distaste much of their cost base. Why would you want something you don’t use? To look at?

Who should pay for peoples expressed preferences? If people want commercial business to survive then they need custom.

I also think many countries accept that pubs/bars are not profitable most of the day and open in the evening but there seems a weird aversion to it here.

It’s clear that what British people want in their towns is nice shops to look at or but not buy anything. And they hate convince shops, coffee shops and barbers even though those are nasally the most commercially robust use of small retail outlets.

Will they will certainly enjoy all the candy.

Yes West Country in general it’s kind of the game of the countryside, small town.

Does this include tv?

You clearly don’t understand railways. The railways are full, you need new capacity to unlock more services. You can always say you don’t need to save 15 mjns, but if you took that approach people you’d never move anything.

Birmingham would probably have gained the biggest connectivity gain in % terms - new direct fast services to Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh Newcastle.

London has 2 stations on the proposed HS2 network of about 20.

No 2m want to go to London each day. HS2 as envisioned would have served Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham, and allowed more services to Coventry on the WCML.

There needs to be better consumer protection against false accusations - maybe firms should pay a fixed amount for time wasted, or consumers should be paid the same value of the claim.

It always seemed like junk data, like surveying wedding costs from high end wedding magazines you are picking a niche group.

Using this logic you would never build any transport as people don’t want to go to any single place - but quite a lot do want to got to London, something like 2m per day.

Not sure you could describe HS1 as on Time and budget.

Incudes pensions I think too? hard to defend yourself with a well paid pensioner.

Maybe James Haskell will do it.