Yes, the report says it is affordable, but it also says the data provided by the operators was of varying quality and, in many cases, wasn't robust enough. Or perhaps that's just shorthand for "the numbers weren't as good as expected, so assumptions were made that support the business case". Either way, that should be the immediate red flag for anyone who understands the financial side of developing a business case. The underlying numbers simply aren't robust enough to justify diving head first into something on this scale.

Parking the vision of perfectly reliable buses, service levels that mirror those before 1986, and very cheap fares, which, let's be honest, is probably what much of the public expects based on how this is being sold. The cost is the single biggest driver of the whole proposal, and I worry that as more of these schemes come online across the country, the pressure on the public purse will increase significantly compared with the current system. I don't think it's sustainable, nor do I think it will deliver what people expect, certainly not without some form of additional local taxation. The only guaranteed outcome is that, eventually, all the buses will be painted the same colour.

That said, I'm also a realist. Politics will win here because it's a manifesto pledge and an obvious vote winner. The majority will be in favour because many local people believe this will immediately deliver prompt and reliable buses, perfectly designed routes, better timetables and a transformed network. I'm far less convinced the reality will match those expectations, even months or years later.

I simply cannot see how it works financially. The funding currently provided to operators doesn't disappear under franchising. It still has to be built into the business case. ENCTS and BSOG, by far the two largest funding streams, will still be paid, with the likelihood of regular additional revenue support on top, as we've seen in places such as London and Manchester.

This is the additional funding I'm referring to. Even London's franchised bus network requires substantial ongoing public subsidy rather than operating on a financially self sustaining basis. If many more areas move to franchising and require similar levels of ongoing support, the cumulative cost to central government becomes significant over time.

That strikes me as a major funding challenge that hasn't really been addressed. As a taxpayer, like everyone else, I'd want to know where that money will come from in five or ten years' time. Will taxes have to increase, will new local funding mechanisms be introduced, or will spending have to be reduced elsewhere? Those are questions that deserve clear answers before committing to such a significant change.

Instead, I worry that many of these franchising debates are driven more by emotion than evidence, with the existing bus operators often portrayed as the villains simply because they operate for profit. Whether or not franchising is the right answer should be judged on robust evidence, realistic financial assumptions and long term affordability, not on whether private operators are seen as inherently good or bad.