Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I'm on a £1 for 4 weeks subscription. It's very good in places, but as bad as other papers in others. In the last 2 days we've had columns and letters against HS2 which have all failed to mention capacity ("all for 20 minutes off the journey to Birmingham") and talk about how big projects go overbudget, so we should upgrade existing lines. Despite the fact HS1 was on time and budget and upgrading the West Coast Mainline was a disaster. One letter even quoted the Taxpayers Alliance- who, btw, included the cost of Crossrail 2 as being part of HS2. One columnist talked about how investors would be keen to invest in "Boris Airport", as if that were free money. Somehow, I think those Chinese businessmen and Arabian sovereign wealth funds are probably quite tough cookies.
Anyone else look at the FT much?
I used to pik it up at the airport when working abroad (I'm sure you can guess the alternatives).
It is a fascinating title - the only one I've come across where our Betters (The likes of wacko Tory backbenchers and think tank apparatchics) speak their real feelings.
I've still kept an edition from soon after the 2nd gulf war faded into peace.
It's telling that it has 3 articles that would cause a scandal in any other paper.
One questions the motives for the war, and presents war as the "highest cost solution".
The next examines Haliburton's winning the "No bid tender" for logistic support.
The third looks at the connections between the war's supporters in Washington, party funding, and preferred supplier deals.