Snow

Snow

‘Daddy… daddy… DADDY.’

      ‘Yes, Gorgeous Daughter, why are you shouting at me?’

      ‘Cos you were ignoring me, Mummy never ignores me.’

      ‘I was busy doing something so I didn’t hear you.’

      ‘Mummy always hears me, even when she is doing two things at the same time.’

      ‘OK, Miss Andry, that’s enough of your aggressive feminism, eight is too young for that.  How can I help you?’

      ‘Is it true what my best friend Fiona says?’

      ‘What does Fiona say?’

      ‘She says that her daddy says he knows everything. Do you know everything?’

      ‘I know as much of everything as Fiona’s daddy, in fact more because he’s a muppet.’

      ‘What’s a muppet?’

      ‘Never mind, Gorgeous Daughter, what were you going to ask me?’

      ‘Why is snow white?’

      ‘Well I guess it is because she is tired from looking after seven dwarves.’

      ‘No silly, I mean why is snow white when rain isn’t?’

      ‘Oh, that’s an easy question. The fairies paint each snow flake white on its way down from the sky.’

      ‘Where do they get the paint from?’

      ‘Same as we do, from B & Q of course.’

      ‘I’ve never seen any fairies when we’ve been shopping for paint.’

      ‘That is because B & Q only run their fairy price promise on Thursday mornings and we usually go on Friday evening or Saturday morning.’

      ‘Oh, OK.’

*

‘Daddy.’

      ‘Yes, Gorgeous Daughter.’

      ‘If each snow flake is painted white by the fairies, why isn’t there a lot of white paint left on the garden when the snow melts?’

      ‘That’s a very good question.’

      ‘When you say that it usually means you don’t know the answer.’

      ‘Of course I know the answer, I told you, your daddy knows everything.’

      ‘So what’s the answer then?’

      ‘Well, err, it’s…/

      ‘You don’t know do you. Wait ‘till I tell Fiona. She’ll tell her muppet daddy.’

      ‘Of course I know the answer, I was just teasing you. Don’t tell Fiona that I called her daddy a muppet will you?’’

      ‘OK. Well, what is it then?’

      ‘If you stop stamping your feet, I’ll tell you. The white paint dissolves into the earth so you don’t see it.’

      ‘What does dissolve mean?’

      ‘When you have a cup of tea, you put a spoonful of sugar in it don’t you?’

      ‘Yes, so?’

      ‘The sugar is white, just like snow flakes but when you have finished drinking your tea, you don’t see the sugar at the bottom of the cup do you? It is just the same with the white paint.’

      ‘Oh. OK’

*

‘Daddy.’

      ‘Yes, Gorgeous Daughter.’

      ‘Where does the sun go when it gets dark at night?’

      ‘It goes behind the earth so we can’t see it.’

      ‘OK, when you put me to bed at night, you or Mummy read me a story.’

      ‘Yes…’

      ‘Then when you have finished the story, you turn the light out.’

      ‘Yes…’

      ‘If the sun goes behind the earth at night, where does the light from my bedside light go?’

      ‘It goes back along the wire to the plug in the wall socket and then back along the wires in the wall.’

      ‘So it’s in the wires all night waiting to come out?’

      ‘Yes and if you turn your light on at night, the light comes back down the wires and the light comes on.’

      ‘If I turn the switch off at the wall socket, the light goes off’

      ‘Err, Yes.’

      ‘If I turn the switch off at the wall socket, unplug the light and then switch the wall socket switch on again, will light come out of the socket and make a puddle of light on the floor?’

      ‘Have you tried it?’

      ‘No, I don’t want to make a mess on the floor.’

      ‘That’s right, please don’t try it, we don’t want to have to clean up a big light puddle do we?’

      No, I suppose not.’

*

‘Daddy.’

      ‘Yes, Gorgeous Daughter.’

      ‘Does the sun really go behind the earth at night?’

      ‘Well, it looks like it but it is really the earth turning once a day that makes it look like that.’

      ‘So the earth is spinning?’

      ‘Yes.’

      ‘But when you take me down to the swings in the park, you tell me to hold on tight when I have a go on the roundabout as otherwise I would fall off. Why don’t I fall off the earth if it is spinning like a roundabout?’

      ‘Because the earth is a lot bigger than the roundabout, it has what is called gravity which pulls you on to the earth. So when you jump in the air, you soon come down to stand on the earth again.’

      ‘But if I look under my shoes, there is no string to pull me down with.’

      ‘That’s because gravity is a force which no one can see. It is like invisible string.’

      ‘Oh, OK.

*

‘Daddy.’

      ‘Yes, Gorgeous Daughter.’

      ‘Will you always answer all my questions?

      ‘Yes, of course I will.’

      ‘Why are boys different from girls?’

      ‘Err, go and ask your Mummy.’

      ‘You don’t know do you?’

      ‘Err, no.’

      ‘Fiona’s daddy doesn’t know either, she had to ask her mummy.’

     

Benefits

Benefits

‘Err, um, err, good morning gentlemen. You, Ian Dando Brown, are the minister for unemployment, benefits and pensions and you are the shadow minister for the same, Liam Burn?’

      ‘Morning Evan, yes that’s right, I have the honour of being in the front line to sort out the mess that labour left during their ineffectual time in office.’

      ‘Hi Evan, yes, I am the one who has to expose the con trick that this government is carrying out on the hard working families in this country.’

      ‘So Mr Burn, would that be the shirkers that you have referred to twice in your recent speeches ?’

      ‘Err, well I was speaking metaphorically then Evan.’

      ‘Right, so you don’t agree with Mr Dando here that working people should get paid more than anyone on benefits because they, by your definition, are also hard working people?’

      ‘I think the best way to help people on benefits is not to penalise them by stopping their benefits but to help them back into work.’

      ‘So you don’t agree with any of the government’s proposed cuts and in fact, you have voted against all of them since this government came into office?’

      ‘Absolutely Evan. We stand full square behind the working people of this country and will continue to oppose taking money out of the pockets of working families.’

      ‘That all sounds very laudable until you examine the effects of that policy. If you refuse to support any cuts then the deficit will continue to rise. If the deficit rises, the government has to pay out more money in interest each month to the banks, making them richer than they already are. So you, Mr Burn, are saying that the labour party’s policy is to continue with the enrichment of the banks by taking money out of the tax payer’s pockets? I think that slogan will be an excellent vote winner, ‘ Support the banks, vote labour.’

      ‘No, no, err, of course that isn’t what I meant.’

      ‘So you do support the government cuts and will vote to cap the benefits to a 1% increase each year for the next three years?’

      ‘No, I didn’t say that.’

      ‘So what are you saying? Do you support the cuts or not?’

      ‘Well that depends, of course, on what cuts you are talking about’

      ‘I’ll pass the baton to you Mr Burn. You tell me and our listeners what cuts you do support.’

      ‘Well obviously I cannot write our manifesto for the next general election here and now on the twoday programme. No one would expect me to do that.’

      ‘I think our listeners will have also given up expecting a straight answer from you by now, Mr Burn, don’t you. To misquote your parting shot as you left office: ‘Good luck, there is no truth left.’

*

Perhaps I can turn to you now Minister. Why do you think it is right to take money from the poorest in our society? Surely 1% to someone on benefits means more than to, say one of labour’s banker friends.

      ‘I think that is an unfair thing to say Evan and is really ---/

      ‘Thank you Liam, you have had your chance, I would really like to hear what Mr Brown has to say now.’

      ‘If I can set the scene here, Evan. The cost of benefits to the tax payer has increased by forty times since the welfare state was set up in 1948. The country simply cannot afford to continue spending on welfare at the same rate that labour ramped it up to during their time in government. They were desperate to bribe the electorate with their own money to vote for them at the general election in 2010. It is fortunate that we have an educated electorate who could see through that.

      This government has the unenviable job of trying to sort out the mess that labour left.They have not learned the lesson of their folly and they still continue to vote against every reform we try to make.’

      ‘Thank you for that party political broadcast Minister. Perhaps I could now be awkward and ask you to answer my question? Do you remember what it was?’

      ‘Yes, of course Evan and I am very happy to answer. Public sector workers have had two years of a pay freeze now so how can it be right that these people are getting less money while those on benefits continue to increase their income – up by 5.2% in 2012 remember. We need to reduce the incentives to stay on benefits and get people back to work.’

      ‘So you agree with Liam here, that is just what he said. I am interested though in the fact that you always compare the incomes of unemployed people on benefits with public sector workers, why not compare them with, for example, higher paid people in the private sector who have just received a 5% cut in their tax bill which will amount to at least several hundred pounds while a 1% rise in job seeker’s allowance will result in less that one hundred pounds a year?

      That 5% will probably be spent on an extra foreign holiday, some luxury goods produced abroad or some exotic tax free investment scheme while the unemployed will probably spend the small amount of extra cash on basic goods and services in their neighbourhood so supporting local shops and businesses which will then create more jobs within those businesses.’

      ‘I can see that you used to be an economist Evan before you transferred to the dark side.’

      ‘So you plan to evade the question just like Liam here?’

      ‘The point is Evan that we have to reduce public spending. The 5% tax cut for higher paid people is just to reverse the cynical political tax increase that labour put on 34 days before the last general election. That 50% rate was driving people abroad and they were taking their businesses with them. The welfare bill is the largest part of public spending so we have to reduce that and we have to make it worthwhile to work rather than to stay on benefits.’

      ‘You seem to have the opinion that you need to take money from the poor to incentivise them to work harder but the rich need money given to them to incentivise them? How does that work?’

      ‘In general, the rich have got rich by working hard and building successful businesses, they incentivise themselves whereas we feel the poor would be a lot better with a job rather thasn languishing on benefits – which are paid for by the hard working people who do go out to work. That is why, in April, we are giving lower earners the biggest tax cut they have ever had and, in the process, taking some two million people out of tax altogether.

      We have to reduce the deficit to cut the money that we are, as you pointed out Evan, paying to the bank in interest, rebalance the economy more towards the private sector which is increasing the available jobs faster than at any time since records began, meaning that there are jobs available for people to take up. We have to support that change and so encourage people back to work and ensure it is worthwhile them taking those jobs.’

      ‘That is all very well, but how are you going to convince people that your policy is working?’

      ‘You just have to look at the figures, Evan. There are more people employed in the British economy than ever before in our history. There are now jobs available if people are prepared to look for them.’

      ‘You mean the unemplyed should get on their bike?’

      ‘I didn’t say that.’

      ‘Just as well perhaps minister.

Horseburgers

Horseburgers

‘We have three people here today to try and make some sense of this issue with horse meat finding its way into beefburgers. They are Mr Tegwin Floggit who is the Meat Products Technical Manager for the supermarket where this first came to light, Ms Valerie Twitter who is the chair of the Equine Defence League and Dr Henry Protein who is an expert on animal DNA testing at the University of  Upper Berkhampstead.

      Welcome to everyone and perhaps I can start with you Valerie. May I call you Valerie?’

      ‘Yes, of course you may John.’

      ‘So tell us Valerie, why is it wrong to eat horses, after all they do so regularly in several European countries and most other four legged farm animals are happily consumed by the majority of the UK population?’

      ‘At the EDH, we feel it is just as wrong to eat horses as it is, say, to eat dogs.’

      ‘Well I am sure the Koreans wouldn’t agree with you. What do we do with the old racehorses, and horses that have been kept as pets when they are no longer wanted? Surely most owners would rather sell them to a slaughter house for about £200 rather than having to pay the same sum to have them put down by a vet? I believe we export over ten thousand horses, either live or as carcases to Europe each year?’

      ‘We are also against this trade.’

      ‘So I ask you again Valerie, what do we do with these 10,000 horses each year? Do we pay to have them put in old horses homes or perhaps fed on grass in a meadow and brought in each winter with all the feed costs etc.? Would the EDL be willing to pay for this?’

      ‘No John. We are a small organisation and we certainly couldn’t afford to do that.’

      ‘OK then, your line is that you are just complaining and feel something should be done – you don’t know what and you aren’t prepared to pay anything towards a solution?’

      ‘Well, errm umm, I suppose so.’

‘If I can turn to you now Henry. How can you tell the difference between horse meat and beef once it has been incorporated into a burger?’

      ‘The only way, once it has been minced, is by DNA testing.’

      ‘How do you do that?

      ‘We use a bank of PCR machines to amplify the genome up to an quantity where we can extract the DNA, inject it into a gel and then compare the result with reference samples to confirm if it is pure beef or has been contaminated with horse meat.?

      ‘Is this a reliable method?’

      ‘Oh yes, murderers have been sent to prison for life using the same method.’

      ‘For making horse burgers?’

      ‘No, of course not, it is not illegal to sell horse meat in the UK.’

      ‘It is a very reliable test then?’

      ‘Yes, of course, but no method is foolproof, there is always human error.’

      ‘So why don’t you just have a panel of tasters who can taste the difference between beef and horse meat?’

      ‘That would be a lot less reliable as horsemeat tastes very similar to beef – in fact some people say it tastes better.’

      ‘Does no harm come to people that eat horses?’

      ‘No, the most dangerous part is catching them, we used to regularly eat horses in the UK until about a hundred years ago.’

      ‘Steady there doctor, people will be getting the idea that you scientists have a sense of humour.’

‘Now then Mr Floggit. If horse meat tastes so good, does you no harm and there is a ready supply of dead horses you can flog, what’s all the fuss about?’

      ‘Please call me Tegwin, John. The issue is not so much the presence of horse meat in our burgers, it is the fact that it is not declared on their labels so is illegal to sell them in the UK. We take our labelling very seriously and strive to ensure that our customers are buying what it says on the label.’

      ‘I don’t see why you take that so seriously as the Prime Minister doesn’t. Oops, sorry, I shouldn’t say thinks like that. I don’t think Desperate Dan would be too happy changing from his favourite cow pie to cow pie with perhaps a bit of horse and possibly even a smidge of pig, do you?

      Every supermarket says that they take all this very seriously but surely the truth is that you want to sell some burgers so your buyers traipse around the back street meat producers until they find the cheapest burgers, bung the producer a few HACCP forms to complete, call it due diligence and you make a huge profit selling Dobbin to your customers ground up into gritty burgers?’

      ‘No that is a complete misrepresentation of what happens. We take the auditing of our suppliers very seriously.’

      ‘I’m sure you take everything very seriously Tegwin, you don’t strike me as a jocular man. What is HACCP by the way?’

      ‘It stands for Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points. It’s way of ensuring the production of quality products. The complete process is analysed and broken down into its constituant steps. The hazardous points are identified and procedures  put in place to mitigate those risks.’

      ‘I see. So your HACCP for burger production would include a mitigation to the mincing part that says, Ensure no horses trot into the mincing area?’

      ‘That is being a little flippant but, in essence, yes that is the principle.’

      ‘And do you have any metal detectors on the line to remove any horse shoes that may have found their way in to the mince?’

      ‘Well, yes, we do have metal detectors on all the lines but surely it would be bad luck to remove any horse shoes?

      ‘Whoah there Tegwin, you are supposed to be taking this very seriously, remember? Now, while we are all taking this very seriously, is it true that the first indication of a problem came from a warehouseman at the burger producer who was unloading the beef carcases when he coughed and said that he felt a little horse?’

      ‘I’m not aware of that occurrence although we do take the health of our supplier’s employees very…/’

      ‘Seriously – yes, I know Tegwin. I’m afraid we will have to leave it there. Thank you all for coming onto the twoday programme this morning.’

     

‘Now over to Rob Bonnet who has the runners at Lingfield today, if they haven’t all been eaten off course – or even on course, who knows? Perhaps we should start taking all this very seriously.’

      

Regeneration

Regeneration.

      ‘Welcome to the Twoday programme minister. I believe you have come here today to explain the great success you have had with your regeneration initiative in some of our inner cities?’

      ‘Thank you Jim, for that welcome. Yes, it is always a pleasure to come here and talk to you about the successes that this government has achieved.’

      ‘As I understand it, this regeneration initiative was your personal idea which you then sold to the Prime Minister and the treasury as a cost effective way of improving the housing conditions of many people who are stuck in old, damp, cold houses in the inner cities?

      ‘Yes, that about sums it up really. As the minister for inner cities, I have taken it upon myself to get personally involved in improving the housing conditions of people who are unable to move because their houses are unsalable or, in many cases, because they have lived in their home for most of their lives and do not want to move away from the community they know so well to a different area.

      ‘Could you explain how it works then please minister?

      ‘Gladly Jim. We are talking mainly about terraced, three bedroom houses here so the first thing we do is to move residents out from a complete street to temporary housing after buying each house for  a fixed price of £20,00  under a compulsory purchase order. We then demolute the complete street and build flats on the land. We can supply accommodation for more families in the same area than could be achieved by the old fashioned houses.’

      ‘What is the capital cost of each flat?’ asked Jim

      ‘Err, it’s about £55,000.’

      ‘I see, please carry on, what happens then?

      ‘The families that are in temporary accommodation then move into their brand new, modern, warm flats.

      ‘Do all these flats have three bedrooms?’

      ‘Well, no, that would costs too much.’

      ‘How much do people have to pay for these flats and do they get a choice of where they live?’

      ‘Most people cannot afford to buy them as they would have to pay about £100,000 to cover all the costs so they are mainly rented. We cannot offer a choice, of course, as we have to get them populated as soon as possible so that we can get on with the next street. Some people don’t much like living in the high rise flats at first but I am sure they will soon get used to it.’

      ‘A question if I may minister. How much would it have cost to bring those old, terraced houses up to modern standards?’

      ‘Err, well, I suppose, erm. We have not considered that as it is better to make a clean sweep and start again.’

      ‘The BBC has asked two firms of surveyors to inspect a complete street of houses just before they were  ‘demoluted’. Would you like to hazard a guess how much it would to cost to insulate each house, repair any structure as necessary, damp proof them, install double glazing, central heating and new bathrooms and kitchens with a redecoration to the owner’s specification throughout?’

      ‘Well I don’t pretend to be an expert of course so, no, I won’t guess.’

      ‘I can tell you, minister that the figure is £11,534.’ We also carried out a survey of all the residents in that same street and the results were very interesting. Would you like to hear them?’

      ‘Well, err, yes, of course, I am always happy to listen to what people want.’

      ‘I will give you a copy of the report to take away with you minister but I can let you have a verbal executive summary now.’

      ‘98% of the residents did not want to move out. They would be delighted to have their homes upgraded and even pay for most of the work as long as the threat of imminent demolition was removed so that their home would regain some of its value. This would enable them to sell up and move on later if they need to because of family or job reasons. They valued their small gardens and the fact that they had their own front door and three bedrooms. The last thing they wanted was to move into a small two bedroom box in the sky.’

      ‘Now minister, how is the regeneration process going? How many houses have you ‘demoluted’ and how many people are in their new flats and how many are stuck in temporary accommodation?’

      ‘We are making excellent progress. We have demolished 2,300 houses and 1,247 families are cosy in their modern flats.’

      ‘So that means that over 1,000 families are stuck in temporary accommodation. Why is that?’

      ‘This country has a deficit which we need to get down so the treasury has had to reduce the money available for this programme..’

      ‘Do you mean ‘reduce’ or cut completely? Is it not true that this programme has stopped completely because, in the words of your treasury man, ‘There is no money left?’

      ‘Err, errm, well yes, sort of, but as soon as they economy picks up we will crack on with it.

      ‘So if I can summarise minister. You have destroyed 2,300 houses that could have been improved at a costs of under £12,000 each to a modern standard allowing people to stay where they want, in homes they own, in their own communities. Instead you have spent a total of £100,000 on each family to allow them to live in a smaller home, where they don’t want to live, paying rent because they cannot afford to buy.

Overall you have spent £125 million to rehouse less than 1,300 families in homes that are inferior to their previous ones, leaving 1,000 families stuck in miserable temporary accommodation.

You could have spent just £28 million refurbishing those 2,300 homes, so saving the country £97 million and making a lot of families very happy. This would also have provided work for many of the local tradesmen in the area who would have spent some of their wages in the local shops.

Is that a fair summary minister?’

      ‘Err, erm, well, I, I’

      ‘Thank you minister, good luck with the next election. Don’t forget your copy of our report.

Now over to Rob Bonnet for the sport.’

Train Fares

Train fares

‘Good morning Mr Brunel, welcome to the Twoday Programme’

      ‘Thank you Mr Humphreys, delighted to be here’

      ‘Please call me John, we are all friends here. You are, I believe Mr I. K. Brunel, the commercial director of Mendip Rail?’

      ‘Yes, that is correct. We hold the franchise for providing rail services to the Western Region from London Paddington.

      ‘You have a very appropriate name for your role I see, may I call you Isambard?’

      ‘I’m afraid that isn’t my name, I am Ian Kevin Brunel.’

      ‘Oh, right, well I’m glad we got that sorted out. So tell me Ian, why are you yet again inflicting an above average price rise on your long suffering passengers, for the tenth year in a row?’

      ‘I’m afraid we have little choice in the matter John. The government is insisting that less money should come from the tax payer to support the railways so we have to recover our costs from our passengers to support our services and to provide investment for the network and rolling stock.’

      ‘I assume rolling stock is railway-speak for trains?

      ‘Yes.’

      ‘So I assume it is important that you keep the costs of running your service as low as possible and you make investments in the most efficient rolling stock.’

      ‘Yes, of course and we pride ourselves on meeting both of those criteria,’

      ‘Does that include the electrification of the main line from Paddington to Bristol Ian?’

      ‘Yes, that will provide a clean, efficient and fast service between two of our major cities and will reduce the travel time by an average of 13 minutes.’

      ‘Where will the electrical power come from to drive these trains?’

      ‘It will draw power from the National Grid but most of the power will be provided by Didcot power station which is roughly halfway between Bristol and London. This will minimise the transmission losses.’

      ‘So you are using an old, 1960’s coal-fired power station to run what you describe as your new ‘clean, efficient and fast’ new service? Does this mean that the pollution from the burning coal will be seen by the residents of Didcot rather than your passengers?’

      ‘No, Didcot power station has a very high chimney so the exhaust gases are diluted high in the atmosphere.’

      ‘One of the highest structures in the UK I believe, which means that the gases are blown to the east by the prevailing South Westerly wind and have been proven to kill fish in Swedish lakes by acidifying the water.’

      ‘I don’t know anything about that.’

      ‘Because of the European clean air directive I believe that over half of the Didcot power station will be shut down in March 2013 so that your power for your new trains, when they come into service in 2014, will have to come from further afield so increasing the transmission losses?’

      ‘Err, yes.’

      ‘ Our research has calculated the the overall conversion efficiency from coal to train motion is about 15%. Would you agree with that?

      ‘Err, I don’t know.’

      ‘Are you aware that your namesake achieved a higher conversion efficiency of 17% on the same route with shorter journey times using steam locomotives? Also that the latest fluidised bed steam locomotives in use in Chile are now achieving over 20%. A design for a steam locomotive using 21^st century technology has achieved 27% - nearly twice your proposal – using coal slurry which is dramatically cleaner that standard coal furnaces. Are you sure you are investing in the best technology Ian?’

      ‘That is all very well but where would we get the coal from?’

      ‘From Australia and Bolivia just as Didcot does now, Ian. Or, if you use a little imagination, rather than importing it through Avonmouth as now thus keeping many British miners out of work, you could exploit the coalfield which lies under Avonmouth. This would reduce the number of people out of work, reduce taxes to pay their job seeker’s allowance, reducing the pressure on government to decrease your support and so you would have no need to increase fares – or should that be unfairs Ian?’

      ‘Err, well, that sounds all very good but it is outside my remit and err I don’t see how and anyway it would err…’

      ‘Come back Isambard, where are you when we need your vision, eh Ian?’

*

‘Now if I can turn to you Minister. You are Peter Rhodes, Secretary of State for transport?’

      ‘Yes, I am and I have been listening to your conversation with Ian here with great interest.’

      ‘Good. My question for you Minister, is why do you want to move the cost of providing a railway service from the taxpayer to the passenger?’

      ‘Surely it is only fair that those who use the service should pay for it?’

      ‘Yes, that sounds reasonable at first sight but if you follow that logic then you end up with only parents paying for schools and only sick people paying for the NHS? Surely it is a mark of a civilised community that all of us chip in to pay for what has been referred to as ‘the common goods’? This after all is the basis on which the NHS was founded? Perhaps this is where this government is going?’

      ‘No, absolutely not, John. This government is committed to keeping the NHS free at the point of use.’

      ‘Glad to hear that Minister. So using your logic then, why don’t you remove all tax payer support from Ian here and leave him to set an economic price for the service he provides?’

      ‘Well, that would certainly help reduce taxes but there is a problem in that there is no real competition and so we have to have a regulated price.’

      ‘Why not allow competition to develop so that there is a free market in rail travel. Entrepreneurs could then be encouraged to set up their own railways if they can see a way to make a profit.’

      ‘No, that wouldn’t work. We want to see an integrated transport system in this country.’

      ‘Are you aware that Brunel built a line from Paddington to Bristol, a hotel in Bristol, a line to Neyland in Pembroke and a trans Atlantic steam ship service from there to America and ran the whole shebang at a profit. He also had competition from a rival line from London to the West Country to contend with. Are you saying we have no one in this country who is capable of matching Brunel’s achievements in the 21^st century?’

      ‘Yes, I’m afraid so.’

      ‘That seems a great shame. Thank you Peter and Ian.

      ‘Thank you John.’