Search results

The midlandred.net website is great for information!

That's interesting. Personally I very much prefer a number to a meaningless name - something like "Link" would be more suited to a high-frequency interurban route, rather than an hourly rural service linking two minor towns.

Stagecoach South's seem strange though - some trunk routes get names, others simply have numbers - some locals have names, others numbers....was there one named route per depot or something? Other operators with named routes - Trentbarton would be the one that immediately comes to mind - at...

Why did some of Stagecoach South's routes have names rather than numbers?

I doubt that, for a small urban operator like Safeguard, the £2 scheme would have had much of a significant effect on passenger numbers if they did participate, as most fares would be low to begin with (The article quotes that the maximum fare is £2.50) and the most growth on routes since the £2...

Looks like the 33 is being split as well. The X35/67 extension didn't last long.

As far as I know all were stored at Monforte del Cid in south-east Spain before being scrapped in 2019-20.

Many tri axle decker have been new to the UK, including all Olympus bodied examples. This one was new as LJ58GCK to Tellings Golden Miller.

You haven't explained how it won't "work in reality" at all. I'm not a parent myself but it is already a struggle (albeit minor) to make packed lunches for myself, so I alternate between packing a lunch and buying from a shop on weekdays. Obviously option 2 is removed for children. I couldn't...

Even taking the poverty argument out of it, removing the requirement for parents to prepare meals for their children will increase productivity and decrease stress - the long term benefits to the country would be huge. It's only a bad concept to those who can't see past the next election cycle.

And which of those does feeding children nutritious meals fall into?

What next? Cut out the avocado toast and Netflix subscription? What an absolutely out of touch comment.

I have no problem paying more taxes for things that will have an obvious benefit to society as a whole. It's when taxes rise and the public services appear to be decreasing in value and quality that I would start getting concerned about the amount of spending on "free" things.

I don't think the meals will cost anywhere near £2.75 each - most meals I make for myself cost me less than £2.50 and that's without the economies of scale that will be involved - not to mention that children will be eating significantly smaller portions. Furthermore £5.3bn is absolutely tiny...

How is this the case? Higher earners pay more tax, and are more likely to use private schools so will be unaffected anyway...

In which case free school meals makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to their situation?

It definitely wouldn't decrease spending, but would be a relatively small increase in total spending, and the benefits gained from this increase would faw outweigh any benefits gained from most other spending of this amount. If done properly there is no reason free school meals should cost more...

Yes, absolutely. I understand the funding arguments and the individual responsibility argument, but with the amount of money the government wastes on giving their mates contracts and completely unnecessary spending across the board, this would be a cost effective way to increase health...

I very much disagree. While our country may be in a much weaker global position than it once was, why should this mean that we should "politely bow out of world affairs"? I see no reason why we cannot gain back some of our standing on the global stage, especially in a world which is much more...

The problem is that internal unrest in the US will leave a power vacuum on the world stage, which will likely be filled by China...