(07 Nov 2017, 1:06 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/45616/Coordinated+transport+strike+set+to+bring+cities+to+a+standstill

Strikes to hit bus and rail

(08 Nov 2017, 9:18 am)Andreos1 wrote https://twitter.com/LauraPidcockMP/status/927898853315174404

A few operators brought in to the debate, but one in particular singled out by Gateshead MP Ian Mearns.

(15 Jan 2018, 4:17 pm)Andreos1 wrote Will just leave this here.

(15 Jan 2018, 7:53 pm)Adrian wrote

£2bn worth of contracts awarded, even after it became clear the company was in dire-straits.  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/15/labour-demands-answers-on-high-risk-carillion-contracts

The irony would be funny if it wasn't so terribly sad... a Government that has plenty of money to offload on to multi-national corporations, which choose looking after their bonus scheme before fulfilling their contractual obligations. Yet not enough money to reverse Government policy, which people are dying as a result of.

(15 Jan 2018, 4:17 pm)Andreos1 wrote Will just leave this here.

(15 Jan 2018, 11:37 pm)BusLoverMum wrote Aye, cos these private companies are so much more efficient than the public sector.

Husband used to work for Serco. They couldn't find their corporate arse with both hands. They sold off his bit when they realised the had it.

(11 Apr 2018, 10:27 pm)Adrian wrote Suppose this is as good a thread as any.

Labour announces plan for under 25s to have free bus travel
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-promises-millions-brits-aged-12345014

(12 Apr 2018, 9:42 am)idiot wrote Magic money tree again.

How will they pay for it?
The money will come from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) - better known as car tax.

From April 2020, VED is due to become a ring-fenced tax to pay for a new roads fund set up by the Tory government.

Labour, however, would widen that ring-fence by putting the money into a "sustainable transport fund" instead.

Labour's fund would be split between both road-building and the bus passes policy.

However, a Labour source insisted no less money would be spent on road building because the extra funds would be provided from capital - long-term, one-off - spending.

Labour has estimated the cost of the policy will be £1.4billion a year.

This is based on bus use statistics from the National Travel Survey and projections on how soon different authorities would be able to implement franchising or municipalisation.

(12 Apr 2018, 7:17 pm)Jamie M wrote I think it's a silly way of using the money. Maybe using it to subsidize fairs or investments, but cutting money out of the system completely seems... a waste of time and spending. Why not just carry on with their plans to reuse VED and continue to charge people for the service, even if at a subsided rate?? More money to re-invest...

I'm also more concerned about public health and public education and public safety (police & CSOs) than I am about public transport subsiding also, and they definitely should be dead-center of attention for an opposition, it's an open goal. I think it's just politicians trying to appease the common people rather than making a serious pledge, at least I'd hope so in this case.

(12 Apr 2018, 7:23 pm)Adrian wrote Do you think the two are mutually exclusive? Every party will come up with a manifesto to pledge to offer different things to different groups of people; that is politics.

Not sure I understand your comment about VED and the link to lower investment. Unless you're dreaming up a forecast for a particular local authority area?

(12 Apr 2018, 7:17 pm)Jamie M wrote I think it's a silly way of using the money. Maybe using it to subsidize fairs or investments, but cutting money out of the system completely seems... a waste of time and spending. Why not just carry on with their plans to reuse VED and continue to charge people for the service, even if at a subsided rate?? More money to re-invest...

I'm also more concerned about public health and public education and public safety (police & CSOs) than I am about public transport subsiding also, and they definitely should be dead-center of attention for an opposition, it's an open goal. I think it's just politicians trying to appease the common people rather than making a serious pledge, at least I'd hope so in this case.

(12 Apr 2018, 7:17 pm)Jamie M wrote I think it's a silly way of using the money. Maybe using it to subsidize fairs or investments, but cutting money out of the system completely seems... a waste of time and spending. Why not just carry on with their plans to reuse VED and continue to charge people for the service, even if at a subsided rate?? More money to re-invest...

I'm also more concerned about public health and public education and public safety (police & CSOs) than I am about public transport subsiding also, and they definitely should be dead-center of attention for an opposition, it's an open goal. I think it's just politicians trying to appease the common people rather than making a serious pledge, at least I'd hope so in this case.

(13 Apr 2018, 10:19 am)Andreos1 wrote Whilst the Home Office is ultimately responsible for divesting funds to the police forces around the country, it is up to the local PCC to allocate the funds as they see fit. 
This also applies to any precept raised via council tax.

Regardless of how much or how little the Home Office allocates, that PCC will spend accordingly and look after issues they feel important.
Vera Baird has a particular agenda and allocates accordingly. Regardless whether we agree with it or not. This includes  victims services, which strangely enough enabled her to award the contract to an organisation she is a director of.

(13 Apr 2018, 11:20 am)Chris 1 wrote I can't say I've noticed a populist clamour for such a policy?

Young people aren't entitled to things like the full minimum wage so spend proportionately more of their lower income on travel.  Plus, if they have free travel then they'll be less inclined to have their own car, thus easing congestion and relieving air quality.  Surely that's a good thing?

(13 Apr 2018, 11:22 am)Jamie M wrote I used to follow this stuff a lot closer, but now I feel most of the time I feel completely disconnected to what's happening and how the country is even being run. Not sure if this is passive or active ignorance.

I would have thought changing passenger fairs and reusing the VED else where or to improve systems, but hard to really say. I still don't think it will come close to actually happening, but that may just be my complete lack of confidence in any government system at present.

---

My opinions are based on my experiences -- I bought bus passes and drove, so I can't relate to that point.

I don't think it'll deal with congestion either, or not in any noticable way. It'll maybe stop some new drivers starting, but wouldn't convert many to bus imo.

My idea was to subsidise fairs with VED in order to be cutting fairs and having more money free to invest back into the system or elsewhere.

(14 Apr 2018, 9:37 am)Andreos1 wrote Cold, wet, April evening and finishing a shift at 10pm at the Metrocentre, but needing 2/3 buses to complete the trip home? I can't see how that will be attractive to many. Regardless of how reasonable the fares are.

(28 Apr 2018, 10:47 am)Andreos1 wrote https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/apr/27/martin-rowson-on-tory-woes-from-windrush-to-rail-franchises-cartoon?CMP=share_btn_tw

Sack the lot of them!

#toryincompetence

(28 Apr 2018, 10:59 am)Jamie M wrote Neebody to replace them mate!
Not even an opposition..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(28 Apr 2018, 10:59 am)Jamie M wrote Neebody to replace them mate!
Not even an opposition..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(28 Apr 2018, 12:35 pm)mb134 wrote I'd argue that Labour are far more equipped to be running the country than the current Conservatives. Unfortunately the MSM don't actually like to report on the things that the Tories do so horrifically, spending most of their time trying to find fault with Labour.

(07 Jun 2018, 8:57 am)Andreos1 wrote Couldn't make it up.

Private company picks up contracts previously held by public sector (supposedly more cost effective).

Private company collapses.
People lose jobs.

Public picks up the tab.