Incidentally, this was explained by my brilliant A-Level Economics teacher in the late 1990s: we shouldn’t view the railcard price as discounted, but rather the normal price; whereas it’s the absence of the railcard for business travellers that allows their prices to be drastically inflated.

Because business travellers could exploit them and the rail companies wouldn’t be able to extract the enormous additional economic rent (or push very price-sensitive travellers onto off-peak trains).

Price discrimination to segment business travellers on expense accounts away from everyone else. You can basically get a railcard for any possible composition of travellers except a mid-career working-age individual.

This is now: what happens if there is a blanket presumption that "development" completely overrides the concerns of local residents, which is what seems to be proposed here?

What about if you moved to a street years ago when every commercial premises was a shop or a cafe and you now have a dozen bars in spitting distance? Are you allowed to object to having pissed people stood 10m from your bedroom window shouting at 1am or whatever it is going to be instead of 11pm?

I hear you from the perspective of electoral positioning, but I think there's a much bigger strategic question about the future of the country at stake: i.e. force Farage to defend actually-existing Brexit against a real alternative that is the only way of escaping low-growth stagnation/isolation.