Just read an article that Jez wants to give the under 25s free bus travel. This has got to be the most mad idea ever as bus companys will have lose income.
Quote from: Ginger66 on September 26, 2018, 06:20:27 AM
Just read an article that Jez wants to give the under 25s free bus travel. This has got to be the most mad idea ever as bus companys will have lose income.
Very old news, but would depend on the way they were compensated for carrying them
Even as an under-25, I hate the sound of the idea. Can understand the basis but the logic and economics doesn't add up, unfortunately. I think if it's anything like the subsidies from concessionary passes the bus companies will be run into the ground way too quickly; there just won't be profit.
Think about it; buses take kids to schools, uni students to uni, and in between wherever. Would be a massive downfall and loss then.
Personally, I'd rather pay. Yes it's expensive but trains and taxis don't come free for me either. It's a service so it ends up being paid for. But I can completely understand the idea with how extortionate travel is for many others in certain areas.
I could understand it for school and college students in a way, especially those from poorer backgrounds, but you get a decent loan for each year at university, I manage to pay my rent at home and get a Network pass and still have plenty left over for other bills, food, travelling and stuff.
I'm all for subsidizing travel for those who have a family income under a certain threshold if they live outside of 'walking distance' from their place of education though, it seems like a logical thing to do.
Quote from: PointerDart on September 26, 2018, 02:48:22 PM
Even as an under-25, I hate the sound of the idea. Can understand the basis but the logic and economics doesn't add up, unfortunately. I think if it's anything like the subsidies from concessionary passes the bus companies will be run into the ground way too quickly; there just won't be profit.
Think about it; buses take kids to schools, uni students to uni, and in between wherever. Would be a massive downfall and loss then.
Personally, I'd rather pay. Yes it's expensive but trains and taxis don't come free for me either. It's a service so it ends up being paid for. But I can completely understand the idea with how extortionate travel is for many others in certain areas.
It would if you asked Diane Abbott.
Quote from: Mike K on September 26, 2018, 10:54:42 PM
It would if you asked Diane Abbott.
Hahahaha. Brilliant!
This would be good way to encourage bus use among the younger generation currently feeling the financial pinch.
But.
Entirely depends on how it's funded and how bus companies are reimbursed. As we already know concessionary travel isn't paying enough as it is, so this would only make things worse
They would be better of introducing a 16-25 discount card like with the railways. Or charge a little more more the Railcard itself and have a combined "Young Persons Travelcard" to allow useage on both bus and train.
Quote from: Rob T on September 27, 2018, 10:58:57 AM
They would be better of introducing a 16-25 discount card like with the railways. Or charge a little more more the Railcard itself and have a combined "Young Persons Travelcard" to allow useage on both bus and train.
But that would involve proper integration between bus and train
Can't be having that can we? Far too sensible....
Quote from: PointerDart on September 27, 2018, 09:18:20 AM
Good point lol :P
Thats the only problem I have with a Labour government.
Diane Abbott & its not the obvious either!
Im sure Im not the only one that doesnt have confidence in her either!
I disagree with it unless its means tested and only allowed for work or study journeys. 2 examples, a colleague under 25 earns same salary as me why should i have to pay to get to work and them not? Or my beighbour whos 22 and a druggie/alcoholic and has never worked..why should i subsidise his trips to the off licence/leisure trips
The problem here is the Labour party's understanding of the term "free". In modern Britain, "free" means somebody else pays instead of you. I'm against the idea, as it smacks of communism to be frank. Similar to a particular policy that Lenin implemented in the Soviet Union many years ago, but with subway tokens.
Quote from: WMT3000 on September 29, 2018, 09:50:43 AM
The problem here is the Labour party's understanding of the term "free". In modern Britain, "free" means somebody else pays instead of you.
Two huge problems blighting the country these days are congestion, & the Thatcherist attitude that the only commodity worthy of consideration is money.
I've just spent the last two weeks commuting in & out of Birmingham, something I've not done (by Bus at least) for over a decade. I'm a lifelong user & proponent of public transport. And do you know what? It's been absolute hell. The worst of which was a wait of almost an hour for a service that was alleged to run every 8 minutes, with the fun prospect of a trip through Saltley / Alum Rock to follow. No, actually, the worst of which is the knowledge I've got at least another 4 weeks of this torture to come.
Now, none of this pain has arisen from the Buses themselves (well, apart from 4177, a gutless knacker with a three bell load). No, the problem has been negotiating the sea of cars. The population's only going to rise & the congestion's only going to get worse - short of knocking down offices /houses etc to make room for more roads. So we HAVE to coerce potential new motorists to public transport, 18-25's are the key demographic here.
Yes, it will be expensive, but a bargain compared with any alternative.
Quote from: dave47549 (no longer NEL111P) on September 30, 2018, 11:30:14 AM
Two huge problems blighting the country these days are congestion, & the Thatcherist attitude that the only commodity worthy of consideration is money.
I've just spent the last two weeks commuting in & out of Birmingham, something I've not done (by Bus at least) for over a decade. I'm a lifelong user & proponent of public transport. And do you know what? It's been absolute hell. The worst of which was a wait of almost an hour for a service that was alleged to run every 8 minutes, with the fun prospect of a trip through Saltley / Alum Rock to follow. No, actually, the worst of which is the knowledge I've got at least another 4 weeks of this torture to come.
Now, none of this pain has arisen from the Buses themselves (well, apart from 4177, a gutless knacker with a three bell load). No, the problem has been negotiating the sea of cars. The population's only going to rise & the congestion's only going to get worse - short of knocking down offices /houses etc to make room for more roads. So we HAVE to coerce potential new motorists to public transport, 18-25's are the key demographic here.
Yes, it will be expensive, but a bargain compared with any alternative.
I'm certainly not saying that money is the only thing worth considering, and i'm definitely not a Thatcherite - her ridiculous decision to let people buy council houses is the main reason that the country is in crisis. If i'm honest i detest most politicians. Western society is, however, governed completely by money. We need to be realistic. Free travel is not going to stop people from wanting finance cars or from using Uber and is only going to mean hard-working people pay even more tax (affecting quality of life regardless of money) while those who choose to do the bare minimum get even more for free.
I go back to my original point - it's a communist policy. The rich pay more tax, leaving them with less money. The poor benefit from freebies leaving them more disposable income. I can see why Corbyn wears his silly Trotsky cap. But what a hypocrite having literally never done even a day's work in his life.
Fortunately, i'm self employed, i've never been a union member, never had to strike and not get paid, never expected anything for free and will be using my commodity (money) to move abroad if Corbyn ever becomes PM, where i shall continue to work from the same laptop that i use now. No big deal.
I love the dig at Saltley/ Alum Rock. Both labour areas - full of drug dealers and money-laundering businesses. Just how the entire country would be under Jezza.
I personally believe this is good idea.
Labelling the idea as communism doesn't make the idea a communist.
There is simply no reason why we can't take ideas from other economic systems into the current economic system we have. We don't have to go full capitalist, socialist or even communist.
This worked for Scandinavian countries, they're one of most happiest countries in the world. They come top or near top in a lot of statistics.
Now onto this idea, why is it good idea. The equality divide is deepening in the UK amongst the population. This idea is one of remedies we can take to reduce the divide.
We certainly can afford this idea.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" quote fits quite perfectly in this situation.
Quote from: :D on October 02, 2018, 10:19:14 PM
I personally believe this is good idea.
We certainly can afford this idea.
where's the money coming from then?
Labour's estimate for the annual cost of this is £1.4 billion, the Conservatives say (based on 10 journeys per under 25 year old per week) it would be nearer £13 billion per year.
It would also be conditional on local authorities introducing bus franchising or putting services under public ownership.
It also raises such conundrums as a 24 year old on £35k per year travelling free, and a 25 year old on minimum wage paying.
Just a few of the things that need to be considering before answering whether it's affordable or whether it's a good idea.
Quote from: :D on October 02, 2018, 10:19:14 PM
I personally believe this is good idea.
Labelling the idea as communism doesn't make the idea a communist.
There is simply no reason why we can't take ideas from other economic systems into the current economic system we have. We don't have to go full capitalist, socialist or even communist.
This worked for Scandinavian countries, they're one of most happiest countries in the world. They come top or near top in a lot of statistics.
Now onto this idea, why is it good idea. The equality divide is deepening in the UK amongst the population. This idea is one of remedies we can take to reduce the divide.
We certainly can afford this idea.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" quote fits quite perfectly in this situation.
If they're struggling to subsidise services as it is in some areas, which include some paying customers, how on earth do you expect it to fund the travel of all under 25s?
The reasoning behind wanting such a policy is fair enough but it's not one that is feasible in practice. There are many reasons it may work in Scandanavian countries but it doesn't necessarily translate to working in the UK.
The idea is completely unworkable and will send operators to bankruptcy. Total non starter.
Quote from: Mike K on October 02, 2018, 11:09:57 PM
Labour's estimate for the annual cost of this is £1.4 billion, the Conservatives say (based on 10 journeys per under 25 year old per week) it would be nearer £13 billion per year.
It would also be conditional on local authorities introducing bus franchising or putting services under public ownership.
It also raises such conundrums as a 24 year old on £35k per year travelling free, and a 25 year old on minimum wage paying.
Just a few of the things that need to be considering before answering whether it's affordable or whether it's a good idea.
According to Labour, the £1.4 billion would be funded by vehicle exercise duty. The £13 billion? There are several areas where savings can be made or additional revenue can be collected.
The current government is quite wasteful in regards to their spending, e.g. DWP's disability assessment scheme costing more money than it saves. What about PFI hospitals? For example, under Labour prior to the financial crash of 2008, the deficit rate was similar to today despite the fact we had more social programs back then.
I am aware that the free bus pass would be offered to some young people who don't need it and I say it's okay. They can either drive or take a bus. Any method of singling people out by their income would cost more than it saves in subsidies to bus companies. If they're taking a bus, that's a bonus to the environment and there'll be less wear on the minor roads.
There is a lot of indirect benefits - e.g. less inequality would reduce crime therefore less policing, less health problems associated with pollution or motor incidents, it'll also increase activity of young people, and young people will have better ability to travel further afield to get the best opportunities, etc. Can it translate to £14 billion saving? Not really but it'll bring it down to manageable levels where we can allocate some of budgets destined for ineffective policies to this one.
Quote from: PointerDart on October 02, 2018, 11:28:25 PM
If they're struggling to subsidise services as it is in some areas, which include some paying customers, how on earth do you expect it to fund the travel of all under 25s?
The reasoning behind wanting such a policy is fair enough but it's not one that is feasible in practice. There are many reasons it may work in Scandanavian countries but it doesn't necessarily translate to working in the UK.
I discussed about costs in the above a little bit. Councils struggling to subside some bus services is result of the conservative austerity policy which was a deliberate decision, it has nothing to do whether the government can afford it or not.
Quote from: Mike K on October 02, 2018, 11:09:57 PM
...
It also raises such conundrums as a 24 year old on £35k per year travelling free, and a 25 year old on minimum wage paying....
Worth countering that with pensioners who have free passes but can afford to pay for it
Quote from: :D on October 03, 2018, 01:03:41 PM
I discussed about costs in the above a little bit. Councils struggling to subside some bus services is result of the conservative austerity policy which was a deliberate decision, it has nothing to do whether the government can afford it or not.
It does indeed have everything to do with whether the government can afford it or not. If Councils and government can't afford to subsidise services, which is becoming more common due to less patronage and a decline in paying customers, meaning more subsidies needed for lifeline services, then there is no way that they can then be expected to fund free travel for large proportion of the population even on the most populous routes.
Think about the costs to bus operators themselves, if we were to continue with private owners and companies. It will get to the point that no bus operator can afford to run and no council can afford to run the services because they're too busy shelling out for free travel for everyone who isn't aged between 25/26 and 65-67.
Quote from: :D on October 03, 2018, 01:03:41 PM
There is a lot of indirect benefits - e.g. less inequality would reduce crime therefore less policing, less health problems associated with pollution or motor incidents, it'll also increase activity of young people, and young people will have better ability to travel further afield to get the best opportunities, etc. Can it translate to £14 billion saving? Not really but it'll bring it down to manageable levels where we can allocate some of budgets destined for ineffective policies to this one.
Inequality does not always equate to crime. It is a factor but there are other reasons for inequality, not simply because of travel costs. Less policing will lead to more crime because there is no deterrent. Health problems are dealt with, with emissions zones, etc. If people want to use their car, they should be allowed to. And also remember that diesel/petrol sales will be banned from 2040. (Also, if a service does not meet people's expectations, they will not use the bus - so the free policy doesn't address that issue). Furthermore, regarding what I said about services collapsing because of the inability to run them due to costs, then we're back to square one - everyone has to use a car, etc.
Also, the people who can go "further afield to get the best opportunities" are often those who have the contacts within their family and friends, etc. Typically the middle-classes who thus have the income for a car. So your point about free bus travel doesn't support that. Furthermore, if they were to use the bus, they can still access the opportunities, but just have to pay for it (as you would for fuel for a car).
So really I don't think it would be as beneficial as you state it would be, in the long run. Yes, in some ways it would indeed, but it will have consequences which will then counter-act it.
Government finds the money when it wants to, however it does not think things through.
The OAP passes was transferred to the local authorities but the funding was not ring fenced so the local authorities cut back, and now lots of people have a free bus pass but no bus to use it on.
Ignoring the risible comments from 'not-a-toryboy-honest!', I'll just put this up here (It's primarily dealing in monetary values, so the Thatcherites can understand) ;-)
Mike K stated that Labour's estimate for the annual cost of this is £1.4 billion, whilst the Conservatives say (based on 10 journeys per under 25 year old per week) it would be nearer £13 billion per year.
Both those figures are chicken feed in comparison with the £37bn+ estimated loss caused by congestion last year:
http://inrix.com/press-releases/scorecard-2017-uk/
So, shall we get people on sustainable public transport, or just wait your turn for your garden to be tarmacked as a car park & your house bulldozed for the next road widening scheme?
Quote from: dave47549 (no longer NEL111P) on October 04, 2018, 11:19:59 PM
Ignoring the risible comments from 'not-a-toryboy-honest!', I'll just put this up here (It's primarily dealing in monetary values, so the Thatcherites can understand) ;-)
Mike K stated that Labour's estimate for the annual cost of this is £1.4 billion, whilst the Conservatives say (based on 10 journeys per under 25 year old per week) it would be nearer £13 billion per year.
Both those figures are chicken feed in comparison with the £37bn+ estimated loss caused by congestion last year:
http://inrix.com/press-releases/scorecard-2017-uk/
So, shall we get people on sustainable public transport, or just wait your turn for your garden to be tarmacked as a car park & your house bulldozed for the next road widening scheme?
Tory boy? Typical response of a low paid, Corbyn loving member of the underclass. You should really learn to respect people who are better than you. If you don't like the country or can't earn enough money, then get out.
If you're that thick that you think giving free bus travel to under-25s will remove all congestion from roads, therefore saving £37bn/yr then you obviously can't even understand the article that you've posted. That's the overall cost to the economy! I assume from this that you've got the same grasp of economics as Diane Abbot.
Lastly if you think i'm going to apologise or be spoken down to by the underclass for working hard and earning good money you've got another thing coming. You're a typical union commie, who thinks that everything should be dumbed down to your level - whereas in reality, education, intelligence and hard work elevate a good proportion of society to a place far above anywhere that you and your ilk will ever be. Idiot.
Moderators have anything to say about that incredibly snobbish attack?
Quote from: Kevin on October 05, 2018, 11:06:45 AM
Moderators have anything to say about that incredibly snobbish attack?
This is more entertaining than Bob bashing Cannock. I've even got popcorn *offers popcorn bag to
@Kevin*
Quote from: Kevin on October 05, 2018, 11:06:45 AM
Moderators have anything to say about that incredibly snobbish attack?
Hardly an incredibly snobbish attack. I'm not some humanitarian hippy who spares peoples' feelings for the sake of it. We've all got choices in life. I don't appreciate being referred to as Tory Boy by someone who obviously can't get their facts straight. The reason i don't like Labour is the anti-sentitism, fantasy economics and downright nastiness of a lot of their supporters. A party endorsed by celebrities like Lily Allen and Russell Brand. The whole resentment of people who make something of themselves, or those whose families have done before them is frankly pathetic. And i'm not saying this because i'm a tory, but because i live in an apparently free country, free meaning free to prosper, improve your situation, and generally better yourself and therefore live a better life.
Quote from: WMT3000 on October 05, 2018, 10:06:05 AM
Blah blah incomplete right-wing-wibble
Disappointing. You completely failed to include:
- Snowflake
- Anti-semite
- That was a party political broadcast by the Conservative party
Quote from: Kevin on October 05, 2018, 11:06:45 AM
Moderators have anything to say about that incredibly snobbish attack?
You expected anything less from a tory?
Quote from: dave47549 (no longer NEL111P) on October 05, 2018, 05:52:16 PM
You expected anything less from a tory?
So it's fine for socialists to be vitriolic towards anyone who works hard but as soon as anyone points out that we don't all want to be on minimum wage and retire at 70, they're a tory. As i've clearly stated, i'm not a tory, but neither am i a socialist.
I've really had a laugh today thinking about your failure to prove your point. Especially after your smug implication that people on here are so stupid that we need you to explain things for us. £37bn minus free bus passes equals zero. Hahahaha. Rubbish.
Labour think money grows on trees. Enough said