(16 Aug 2016, 10:41 am)G-CPTN wrote How on Earth can you 'save money' by setting up companies to expand bus services to areas not currently covered?

Are there untapped revenues out there that the current private companies are ignoring?

This is obviously going to vary from area to area - and I suspect it is based on a more "holistic" approach, for which the actual "savings" would be difficult to quantify, but the theory deserves serious consideration.

I assume this plan is an extension of the principle of the current Bus Services Bill, with the removal of the need to have an Elected Mayor, plus the choice of LAs setting up their own companies. A direct saving identified by TFGM is simply taking buses of over-bussed services, and redeploying them where they will better serve the tax-paying public.
There is then the outside advantages of better bus services in lower car-ownership areas, such as better access to medical services and quality, fresh food. Longer-term, a more punctual and affordable bus service will slow the increase in car ownership, and therefore car usage, leading to less congestion and pollution.

It could be argued that its all irrelevant anyway. British domestic politics has swung massively to the right in the last generation or so - not least the Trade Union movement, as evidenced by their comments on Raill fares today - so I doubt the Labour party will win the next Election