I agree with this. Living in London now, I compare almost everything negatively to the north, quality of houses, expense, people being bootyholes and so on. The one thing that London beats everywhere up north for is the transport network. It's all integrated, bus, rail, Tube, you pay for it simply through contactless. Buses here are way cheaper than up north, its £1.50 flat fee per journey. It really is easy to get around.

But to replicate that in the north, you are talking about enormous levels of public expenditure on infrastructure building. That means hard choices about taxes or borrowing.

Also, in the Brexit lexicon, this is a very 'metropolitan' issue too. It doesn't do much for the more rural towns, who would complain that they are even more left behind, if they are paying more in tax to build this type of stuff.

Except a lot of high earners are self-employed via partnerships.

You are suggesting - unless I'm wrong - that we need more buses because the service for a very few people isn't what it needs to be. So in order to do that we need to either nationalise it or put more routes on? Either way the costs to the majority will rise - is that really the way forward. Either way you would be introducing more journeys, more pollution - something you said you didn't want. If you want a quick lower pollution option then electric trains are a more much agreeable solution - that is where Corbyn is wrong. HS2 £106bn buses cycles £5bn indicates where the priorities - correct in my view.

Life is not fair - as I said there are choses to be made - there isn't a bottomless pit of money so if you invest in one area you de-invest somewhere else. For me because a very small minority of people don't have access to bus route when they want so be it - I would much rather we invest in menigitis jabs for kids at school. These are difficult choses.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma; even Boris Johnson wouldn't resort to offering bus routes *or* vaccinations for children, you madman.

I don't actually think the bus thing is that complicated - you seem to want to make it an ideological argument about the unfairness of life and the need to make hard choices; in this instance, you're reaching too far. For me, if you want to operate a bus service for profit, there should be some requirements to serve the whole community - even if that means that some routes are not profitable. Plenty of private businesses, my own included, operate within a regulatory framework that requires us to do things that if we didn't have to do, would make us much more profit - but we do them because they are deemed to be for the greater good - and it allows us into a market in which we make profit anyway.

There are some interesting examples of community bus services for isolated people - I work a lot in Chesterfield, and there's a charity operated service here that covers the rural areas that the bigger players don't - and it also services hospitals, care homes and people who are otherwise housebound; maybe a levy on private operators to fund similar projects is a more efficient and cost effective way of providing wider coverage?

For me I would subsidise these routes if we genuinely think it is so important - that way the cost can calculated correctly and the service agreed. If you make the obligations so onerous no private company will make money and you are back to your preferred model. The problem is in public ownership you will require to be all things to all people and costs will increase significantly.

We had public transport which was not profit based but under the Conservative ideology private is better. The obvious conclusion is that the public ethos is replaced by the profit motivation.
I believe that the majority of transport providers are owned by companies outside the U.K. like many industries that fell fowl of the rush to privatise. Thatcher worked on the greed is good by selling the industries shares knowing that for many individuals who acquired them would go for the instant return allowing them to be acquired by multi nationals.

See what an interesting conversation looks like when you don't divide it by party lines?

I actually think that if we're serious about a climate emergency - which all but swivel-eyed deniers now are - we have to see low carbon public transport as a priority; and that must include buses, to ensure connectivity for people who live in housing estates and rural areas - and can't easily get to train stations for the onward journey. Your electric trains I agree are a big part of that - but there has to be some consideration for getting to and from the train at each end of the journey.

I don't like your tough titty approach to people who don't have easy access - you can sniff all you like at public ownership, but the bus network under LA control was extensive and reliable; I used them to get all over West Yorks up to my mid 20's, and it worked very well. I imagine the busy routes subsidised the quiet ones - and if a private operator can't tolerate that because their driver is maximising shareholder value, then I think it's neither socialist nor Labour to consider doing it a different way - it's just pragmatic.

I fully understand your view about my hard-d attitude but I make no apologies for that. There was a reason buses left LA they simply couldn't run them economically and they were being subsidised by the rest of us and you either accept that as being OK or you do - as you say be pragmatic. A proper metro would ensure stations are close enough that walks between stations are manageable as in London - what I do like is park and ride that is great idea and criminally under used.

Sal Paradise what if you were a newly elected Tory MP in a rural town that has just gone Tory after voting Labour for years, and who voted Leave and Conservative because they were fed up of being left behind by urban-centric metropolitan types who just focused spending on cities and ignored the slowly decaying rural towns.

When they come to your constituency office and say "the bus service round here has been stripped away and stripped away for years, its like we're forgotten about, not everybody is well off enough to get a car, some folk need the buses to get about?"....what's your answer?

History suggests that what Johnson says never meets the legislation they produce.

I would ask them why did they vote for me - did I say I would improve the bus service no I didn't because I have very little influence on what the bus company ? What I did say I would improve the NHS which will positively benefit you, I said we would exit the EU and we have so another positive etc. Be honest with people you cannot be all things to all people that's is Socialist clap trap. Most people understand simple logic to suggest otherwise is saying they are members of ER.

We will build 40 new hospitals- lie, We will employ 50,000 new nurses - lie, we will be able to give 390 million pounds a week to the NHS - lie, we pay 1 billion each month to the EU - lie, we will not have any border checks between the U.K. and Nth Ireland - lie, I could list more but I think you get the idea.

"LIFE IS TOUGH - I CAN'T PLEASE EVERYBODY - THE BUS COMPANY HAS TO MAKE A PROFIT!

Now get out of my office - wherever it is. Where even am I? What's this place called again?"

This will be exactly the characterisation of the Tories that brings them down in years to come, like it did in the 1990s.

They have campaigned on the basis of peoples disillusionment with the decline of their areas and of their services (which is largely driven by Conservative cuts anyway), and portrayed themselves as being on the side of the people not the establishment/business interests, to get people to vote for them.

The voters will expect a return on that and if the Tories revert back to dismissing their concerns with a variant of, "life isn't easy, deal with it" then it will undermine their whole narrative about being the ones 'in touch' with traditional working class communities.

Johnson is, from a policy perspective, an empty vessel. The cabinet is disempowered, having accepted the hegemony of Cummings stable of SPADs.

On balance i’m looking at this as better than it could have been. Cummings isn’t a Tory and oddball though he is, if it keeps Raab and Patel from pulling the levers then so much the better - I can live with that particular democratic deficit.

There’s a question over how well Johnson’s ego will take being widely seen as a ‘comedy clown mascot’ PM. If things start to go badly, then that’s bad by definition and Cumming’s programme will be chucked overboard pdq. On the other hand, if things go well and Cummings is getting the credit, will that slake the thirst that has driven Boris Johnson, a man of basically no political conviction, to pursue his current role?

If this is to have any longevity, then Laurel has make sure Hardy gets applause.

Or yes we can do everything for everybody - which we all know is not possible - I'm sorry the patient that is current getting the £250k a year cancer treatment is getting priority over your bus route. I'm sure you understand that we have to make very difficult decision given we don't have an inexhaustible supply of money. I know you understand that and we both agree that most people with an IQ above that of a slug would also.

You don't know yet do you - we may well build 40 hospitals and we may well have 50k more nurses than we do now - still 4.75 years to go. Would you Labour's claim of selling off the NHS is a lie or are you so myopic you can't see that?

History suggests no government actually meets its manifesto pledges - either side of the fence - of course you know that

In your own words... [iYou don't know yet do you - we may well sell off the NHS - still 4.75 years to go.[/i

I agree - so HS2 is one thing - they say they will invest £5bn in buses/bikes - there is a desire to spend more in the North but you cannot be all things to all people - how many times do we have to have this discussion. It would be great run every bus every 5 minutes, every treatment you need in the NHS is available when you want it - life is not like that. I'm sure there are things you want that you can't have why should we expect everything all the time. Politicians are in the game of winning elections so if you were in their shoes do you think spending money on the NHS/Education/Police would win more votes than extra bus routes?

The Tories have been responsible for cutting the funding to all four - and then lying about future funding/ improvements - so how come they keep winning elections?

Because the public prefer their control of spending to Labour and people simply don't buy you can give everything to everybody - unlike some of here

I think this is what Johnson is proposing and this is why Javid had to go so I guess you are one of them.

But now that we are outside the EU there is supposed to be extra money available which we aren't giving to the EU - why isn't that being spent on the left behind northern towns, or should it just be spaffed up the wall on vanity projects for London and the major cities?

They have only been in power since December we only stopped paying in to the EU two week ago - what do you expect? There will be a budget soon which no doubt will outline spending plans for the North. Better trains - having taken over Northern no doubt that will improve, more bus routes has been announced. The road network in the north is very well invested. If they move other government departments/operations up North like the ministry of justice - 200 jobs in Leeds surely that is an example - what more do what and in what timescale?