So, for example, the real cost to the environment and to public services of motoring should be reflected in what the motorist actually pays. The solving of the rail conundrum cannot be achieved in isolation: it requires that the various hidden subsidies in British transport be made transparent. Only when that is done can we compare the true costs of different modes of transport, from driving to riding. But the byzantine franchising structure, thehiving off of Railtrack and the appointment of a regulator with relatively weak powers have all led to real doubt about this privatisation among those who would normally champion it. As the ticketing fiasco has shown, it is a mess.These four arguments all contain a large measure of truth But they suggest that neither party has so far got it right.

It cannot, like those loss-makers coal and steel, be reduced to its profitable core. This may help to explain the particular form of privatisation that the Government has introduced to rail. Certain lines or services might lose less than others, but overall it is an essential public service that requires subsidy. The railways of Britain have been managed appallingly for decades.

There has been chronic underinvestment, constant political interference, timid management and belligerent unions. OK, now two that favour Prescott. Unlike all other privatised industries, rail is not now, nor can it ever be, a profit-making enterprise. It shakes up managements, ushers in commercial disciplines and attracts additional investment. The result usually means greater efficiency and benefits for the consumer in termsof price and quality of service And two, British Rail needed to be shaken up. So here are the pick of the arguments, to try to make it easier First, two good ones from Mawhinney One, privatisation almost always works. Whose side are you on, Prescott's or Mawhinney's? Are you enthralled by the prospect of the snazzy carriages and chaotic ticketing of privatisation, or really keen on a return to the good old days of huge subsidies and slack management? As a frie nd of Billy Bunter's might have observed, the unterrificness of this choice is truly awesome.

The real drama is over who should lead the Observer back to health.. This time round, Alan Rusbridger, deputy editor of the Guardian, is the clear favourite. There was a form of electoral college and a week of agonising: the staff were quite finely split between John Cole (who went on to become political editor of the BBC) and Peter Preston. The mechanics of consultation were exercised last in 1973, when Preston was picked to replace Alastair Hetherington. The current 10 trustees, who met yesterday to start the two-week search, are Peter Preston, Harry Roche, Hugo Young, Malcolm Young (all from the Guardian), Michael Unger (editor of the Manchester Evening News), Martin and Jonathan Scott, Anne Lapping (TVproducer), Andrew Phillips (solicitor) and Anthony Sampson.

Twelve years later, lawyers redrafted the trust deed to say that power to appoint trustees would die with JR Scott At that point, the company ceased to have a proprietor. Power to fill vacancies p assed to trust members themselves, who now form a self-perpetuating elite: after pressure from journalists, the trust now includes their representative. The search for new editors for the Guardian and Observer underscores the unique, even quaint, framework of the group in an age dominated by media tycoons: the family owner JR (John) Scott effectively gave away the Guardian and Manchester Evening News in June 1936, when the Scott Trust came into being. DespiteWood's success, 1994's Screen One season ended prematurely because ITV's London's Burning was torching it.