Topsoil

The quoted €14bn covers Bordeaux–Toulouse, the Dax branch and works at both city approaches. That's a bigger package than one line. Before comparing it with HS2, pin down the scope and price basis. Otherwise the arithmetic is doing the arguing. sgpsudouest.fr/faq/quels-son…

“Even an untrained eye” 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡 Quite

The new Disabled Persons Railcard route asks for evidence of significant barriers to rail travel. A diagnosis alone may not be enough. You can dislike that test. But “diagnosis = discount” is a different rule. Argue with the one they actually wrote. railcard.co.uk/disabled-pers…

Counterpoint - the technology to create books hasn’t changed in centuries. Music has sounded the same for decades. The technology for film making continues to evolve. Non film nerds may need help to understand why they should pay attention to something which is objectively dated.

The key is to not live in revolutionary Russia but rather a civilized democracy where people basically get on and work to support their families

“You must apologise not just for your actions but for your thoughts” Woke 1.0 was *crazy*

I want to apply the same three questions to policies I like and policies I dislike: Who benefits? Who pays? What would actually work? The difficult bit is keeping the third question alive after finding a satisfying answer to the first two.

“Keep traffic moving” sounds neutral until you ask which traffic. If 40 people on a bus are delayed by 20 people in cars, giving the bus priority isn't special treatment. Counting vehicles instead of people is.

Helping people bid more for homes isn't the same as making homes cheaper. If a scheme increases buyers' budgets without increasing the homes available, explain why the extra money won't end up in sellers' pockets.

A target needs an awkward second question: what can improve the number without improving the thing we care about? If you pay for speed, check quality. If you reward solved cases, check which cases stop being recorded. What would you measure alongside the target?

“There isn't enough infrastructure for more homes.” Sometimes true. Now specify what is missing, what it costs and who should pay. Otherwise an argument for building a school or improving a bus service quietly becomes an argument for building nothing.

A parking space outside a shop could serve one parked car, a loading bay, bike stands or somewhere to sit. “Leave it alone” is a choice about who gets the space. Keeping the existing arrangement doesn't make that choice disappear.

If a profession's entry rules protect the public, ask what harm they prevent and whether a less restrictive rule would do it. “The experts wrote these rules” is relevant. So is the fact that the experts don't have to compete with the people they exclude.

England added 208,600 homes net in 2024–25, down 6%. That includes new builds, conversions and losses. I'd like housing debates to spend more time on homes people can actually move into, and less on announcements. gov.uk/government/statistics…

“Desperately want to believe he did commit plagiarism” 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡 You can easily compare his dissertation with that of Zwodiak Myers. You can do this in the next 3 minutes. Then decide who you want to defend and why. The fraud ended his own life rather than face humiliation. The shame is on the people who enabled him, not the ones who exposed him.

One of them supports a banned terrorist organisation which attacked an RAF base. One exposed a fraud when no one else dared to. These are not the same.

A crossing can be statistically safe and still be miserable to use. People shouldn't need a crash to justify asking for a road they can cross comfortably. But feeling unsafe doesn't settle which redesign would work best, either.