I wonder what the people who thought 'free broadband' was a delusional idea think about building a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland is....

I guess when you are spending 'other people's money' (ie the taxpayer's) its easy to sign off the cheques.

Even easier when the recipient is an old school chum.

I have a question how can the government invest in the bus industry which is now run by the private sector.

Subsidise loss making routes?

Why should private operators be subsidised for loss making routes? Surely the first thing to do would be to find out why those routes were loss making in the first place? And if it turns out the current operator wasn't up to the job, they lose the contract to someone who is up to the job.

I'm not sure it works like that - some routes are loss-making, because they service rural or small communities, with low use, but high need for the people who do use them; if you leave that to the market, no provider would take it on. That's why the privatisation of bus services has failed people - the market goes where the money is; same story with superfast broadband and the left behind rural communities - BT focused all its infrastructure investment on where it could make the most money.

For me, if something can reasonably be called an essential service, the private sector is likely to fail to deliver it in an equitable way.

It should be a per requisite that the bus companies have to run certain routes, along with the more lucrative stuff.
This is one area where privatisation just doesn't work.

It's all well and good for the "bean counters" to chop out loss making routes. However, some of these have to be part of the overall service.
Some things are not just down to pound notes.

Maybe we should have stuck to the socialist model, providing a decent service and with a play to reduce the amount of traffic on the roads

I was being a touch facetious. Some things just can't be left to the markets.

I agree up to the last paragraph - for 90% of the customers the bus service works - it has plenty of customers that is for sure. If you wanted to get the 10% a regular service then it has to funded so that can only be by increasing the costs to the 90% so your socialist model makes everyone poorer but that is the model drag everyone down apart from those at the very top e.g. private education is only for the very few at the top!!

Is it about the many or the few?

So what's your solution? Bo**ocks to the 10% who don't happen to live on a profit-making bus route?

Meanwhile, 'making everyone poorer' actually means reducing traffic on the roads and by extension, cleaning the air; increasing connectivity to rural and small communities, so more people can become economically active; allowing young people to live in the communities they grew up in rather than moving to increasingly overcrowded and unaffordable conurbations; all that annoying, socialisty stuff?

It would be much easier for you to just agree that Corbyn was right about the buses; I don't think it will make you ill or anything.