Alex Massie

I used to think High Speed Rail was an excellent idea. Now I'm not so sure. I suspect the economic case for the proposals is weaker than its proponents allow. More importantly, I'm not at all sure the government's plans for fast trains linking London and Birmingham are the right or most useful possible idea for high-speed rail. Knocking ten minutes off the London to Birmingham route seems like relatively little gain that comes at quite a price. Eventually, of course, the plan is to extend high-speed rail to Lancashire and, perhaps, Yorkshire too. Sometime, one would guess, towards the middle of this century. You can't accuse modern Britain of rushing large-scale infrastructure projects. It is good that the government is paying some attention to northern England. About time too.

Is there anything more pathetic, more risible than rich and privileged Britons whining that their cadre fails to receive a fair shake in the matter of admissions to this country's most prestigious universities? Oh, sure, I suppose there must be but the smugness and evident sense of entitlement on display in these matters remains enraging. Today, for example, Anthony Seldon, headmaster of Wellington College, complains that his pupils are suffering unreasonable discrimination. Worse still, apparently, a presumed "bias" against public school pupils is a "hatred that dare not speak its name". As the Americans say, cry me a river. The evidence for this notional bias is, needless to say, emaciated.

Reihan Salam highlights the latest pro-immigration move by Stephen Harper's Canadian government: Canada is looking to poach Silicon Valley’s intrepid foreign up-and-comers as it launches a “first of its kind in the world” program that will grant immediate permanent residency to qualifying entrepreneurs starting April 1. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Thursday he will head down to America’s technology heartland once the program is in place to begin recruiting the “thousands of super bright young foreign nationals,” often from Asia, who are working at technology start-ups on temporary visas and may have to go home before they’ve been able to obtain their coveted U.S. Green Card.

Con Coughlin suggests Barack Obama has "given up" fighting al-Qaeda which, frankly, is a curious assessment given the ongoing drone war (and other operations) in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Roger Kimball, however, makes Coughlin look like a piker since, according to Kimball, Obama's inauguration speech yesterday contained shades of Neville Chamberlain. Yes, really. These may be extreme reactions but there is evidently a widespread sense that Obama is some form of "neo-isolationist" hellbent on retreating from a big, bad and dangerous world so he may instead concentrate upon our old chum "nation-building at home". If by this you mean Obama is unlikely, as matters presently stand, to send 250,000 American troops into battle then, yes, I suppose this charge has some merit.

I never quite know what to think about the whole Presidential inauguration thing. One the one hand there is always something stirring about being reminded of the sheer scale of the American experiment and something ennobling, even in tawdry times, about any refresher course in its greater hopes or expectations. On the other, well, there's the sheer scale of the pomp and flummery that makes one nostalgic for the theme park simplicity of monarchy. The Cult of the Presidency needs no encouragement of the type it enjoyed today. And so to Barack Obama's speech. The best thing about it was that it was short. Alas, much of the rest of it appeared to have been produced by a standard Presidential Waffle & Platitude machine.

Yes, yes, yes, speculating about the 2016 Presidential election before Barack Obama has even begun his second term is a silly business. But so what? Silly things can be fun things. So Jonathan Bernstein attempts to answer a good question: if Hillary runs, would she knock most of her erstwhile rivals out of the race before the contest even reaches Iowa? His answer is sensible: maybe. But I think I'd be a little more certain than that and rate it probably. In 2000, after all, Bill Bradley was the only candidate to challenge Al Gore's inheritance and Bradley's campaign never looked like prevailing. Now Hillary isn't quite as obviously "next in line" as Gore was but, for a large part of the Democratic base, the difference between 2000 and 2016 is, in this respect, close to insignificant.

How many people presently lamenting the demise of HMV (at least in its current incarnation) actually spent any money there these past, say, five years? Not too many, I suspect. And for good reason: HMV was not, by its end, very good. If it had been wiser or less complacent, it might have been better placed to survive. But here's the thing: HMV was not merely the victim of technological change and new customer preferences it was also the wrong size. Because it had stores in most of Britain's largest towns and cities and because it had been around for a long time we tend to think of HMV as a large company. But it wasn't a large company.

Three cheers for Isabel's post on the difficulties Nick Boles faces in pushing through his plans to make is slightly easier to build houses in Britain. I would add only this: people who already own their houses have more power and much greater access to important media outlets than people who do not own their own homes. Today's wrangling about planning reminds me I meant to write something about Neil O'Brien's excellent recent Spectator article on the north-south divide. To put the matter in the broadest terms, the south's difficulty is the north's opportunity. As O'Brien wrote: The North can gain advantage where it offers something the South doesn’t. Take Preston.