(31 Jan 2015, 12:33 am)aureolin wrote Few points...
Some of the comments about Bridget are a bit unfair. We shouldn't forget that she's went well against party line in pushing this one, and only in the last year, have others started jumping on the bandwagon. She may not use buses (I really have no idea whether she does or not), but I do know that she spends a lot of time and makes a lot of effort to speak face to face with her constituents. She is having issues like this raised with her on a regular basis, hence her pushing the issue in the first place. People love to be listened to, and operators really have failed here.
Can Stagecoach really number one in Sunderland, when they don't serve a large proportion of it? Can't remember when I last seen a Stagecoach bus in Washington?
With the Chronicle. I think they're always going to print sensationalist rubbish, but that can be a huge benefit too. If GNE had a proper spin doctor to handle the media, then they'd have a very powerful weapon with the local media.
As it stands, the public see buses as a public service, and therefore expect them to meet the demands of the public. Unfortunately for them, the bus industry was privatised, and their local services are now ran for profit. No profit = no service, and people quite rightly don't understand that. It's not so much a failing on the operators, but more a failing on the establishment for allowing it to happen.
I think aureolin makes a good point there which is often missed in the QC debate - bus companies aren't doing anything wrong if they withdraw services which aren't profitable. If people want the public sector to be back in charge then they can be, but bus companies can't be blamed for making a profit when that is what the law permits them to do
As for Bridget - she is only interested in her own political career. She couldn't care less where the 35 or any other bus service actually goes