Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

[CUL 73V]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  These private operators were given tens of millions during the pandemic and were not obliged to pay a penny back. Essentially, the taxpayer (you and I) picked up the tab though the shareholders still received their dividends.

Without that money, many bus operators would have gone bust. It wasn't a freebie either, the money is gradually being repaid through taxation. Granted, over a long period of time. If vast sums of taxpayers money going to the private sector and not being repaid annoys you so much, I suggest you aim your annoyance at those responsible for the billions given to those who weren't entitled to it during the pandemic, not private sector bus operators which actually needed the money.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  The franchising model as envisaged does not remove private sector competition: it increases it. As can be seen in Manchester, the incumbent operator in Wigan with a virtual monopoly which, incidentally, fought and lost this move to franchising in the High Court, submitted a bid that was unacceptable to TfGM. Clearly it has learned its lesson as it has just won the second tranche in Oldham and Middleton at the expense of First and GNW.

You're the one who said franchising removes competition on specific (QBP, which isn't actually competition) bus routes. Make your mind up.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  It is little wonder that you are opposed to any increase in council tax as you and your family already receive free - not discounted - bus travel.

For the job we do, I think we and our families are entitled to that small benefit. I'm not prepared to pay more council tax because my partner and I pay enough already for sub standard public services. Food and utility bills continue to rise, but no, Rotheram wants struggling taxpayers to pay out even more so he and other local politicians can have more control. That's what this is actually about. The sooner he's voted out and replaced by someone who actually has voters' interests front and centre, the better.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  I could argue but I won't, though many childless (I have several children) people do, that I should not have to pay income tax to educate your children or provide them with free health care.

Except the examples you're using are necessary public services, so I have no problem paying towards those for other people. A franchised bus network is not an essential service.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  The enhanced partnership model is an option but it still leaves bus services and fares at the discretion of the operator not the travelling public and that it why the franchising model is favoured across Europe and around the world, including the USA.

The travelling public won't have a say in what the fares are. I'm not sure where you've got that idea from.

An enhanced partnership can still retain the flat fares currently subsidised by LCR.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  Outside of London and NI, the UK has endured deregulated bus services for almost forty years and I would suggest that you would need to have been born before 1970 to have any appreciation of the benefits of a regulated one. My understanding is that the TfGM franchises are awarded for five years and I don't think it unreasonable to at least give it this amount of time before any judgement is made on its merits or otherwise.

You only need to look at how much of a financial basket case franchising is in London to form an opinion. I also don't want local politicians getting involved in something they don't have any knowledge of. The fact this city keeps voting for the same politicians who take their job and our votes for granted baffles me.