Labour Party /Free Bus Travel For Under 25s

[:D]

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.

[Tony]

I personally believe this is good idea.


We certainly can afford this idea.

where's the money coming from then?

[Mike K]

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.

[PointerDart]

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.

[markcf83]

The idea is completely unworkable and will send operators to bankruptcy. Total non starter.

[:D]

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.

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.

[Kevin]

...
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

[PointerDart]

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.

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.

[Ian Hardy]

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.

[Isle of Stroma]

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?

[WMT3000]

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.

[Kevin]

Moderators have anything to say about that incredibly snobbish attack?

[the trainbasher]

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*

[WMT3000]

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.

[Isle of Stroma]

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