Lib Dems hate the motorist N!rmpbcBiyXn8GRV.z60~gpz0J#a0P_LaB.sV

No, it's what a policy of supplying public transport means. There is no rail, the only PT option is therefore bus in some form or other. Since the post bus was tried and failed the only option is heavily subsidised (£10 per seat) buses.

Does it make sense to provide these buses? Well no, not on any level. If the community were to pay an economic rate for the provision of bus transport that means that like it or not, evry day of their lives each individual would have to pay for a minimum of 10 return bus tickets at a full, unsubidised price. That's just to get a service of a bus every hour to cover the working day. It does not provide for the needs of those who commute to cities other than the closest one. If the villagers do not pay then someone else must make that payment on their behalf.

The environmental impact of the provision of bus transport is huge, it means that in order to stand a chance of provision of transport when it is needed, that approximately 16 journeys out of 20 moust must be made with zero or a maximum of five pbuttengers. That, or the pbuttengers must be forced to use the trasnport at a time convenient to someone else.

The reality being that a car makes economic and environmental sense in this context and the only reason for demanding a PT alternative is dogma, not economics or service provision. As to the needs of the needy, surprisingly we get along just fine as things are. We're a community and if someone who cannot use a car needs trasnport, there are plenty of us ready to offer that transport as and when needed, for free.

-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759