Green Party Leader on LBC

[The Large One]

They may not directly run them but the council has a big say in the buses and also provide substantial funding. This from The Argus just earlier this month:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/opinion/comment/11800765.Impact_of_bus_cuts/

Quite simply, B&H Buses should have a lot more pressure brought to bear to justify the exorbitant prices or failing that be encouraging rival bus firms to operate in B&H. It's simply not good enough for the council (and I know all councils have been guilty of this) to wash its hands of the issue of bus prices in the town. The council run the town, not the bus company. Show some scollobs and get those prices down.

No council is allowed to bring any pressure to bear on bus ticket prices or have anything to do with them - I believe it's actually illegal to do so.

[MENTION=6]Lord Bracknell[/MENTION] will know more.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

They do provide funding but this is to run buses to specific areas, provide free bus passes for pensioners (although, in theory, this should come from the government) and provide free travel to school kids going a certain distance. This last one must cost a packet: my daughter and all her friends get free travel on buses: you can multiply that by several thousand. Councils can't subsidise buses to cut fares - I think this is actually illegal, I'm sure Lord B can throw some light on it.

Councils have to pay for all this out of reduced government funding, so they're in a tricky position. There's nothing stopping other bus companies coming in and undercutting B&H buses, but as Big Lemon found out, it's not the easiest thing to do

The funding subsidises routes that are uneconomic to run either on certain days (Sunday) or specific times (Evenings) or on sections of a particular route down to low patronage but still provide a community service. B&H Buses only receives a negotiated percentage of the full fare from the council when concessionary passes are used. Central Government doles out the funding to local authorities who then pass this on to the bus companies , this alongside the Bus Services Operators Grant (basically a fuel rebate) has been cut year on year since 2010.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

They do provide funding but this is to run buses to specific areas, provide free bus passes for pensioners (although, in theory, this should come from the government) and provide free travel to school kids going a certain distance. This last one must cost a packet: my daughter and all her friends get free travel on buses: you can multiply that by several thousand. Councils can't subsidise buses to cut fares - I think this is actually illegal, I'm sure Lord B can throw some light on it.

Councils have to pay for all this out of reduced government funding, so they're in a tricky position. There's nothing stopping other bus companies coming in and undercutting B&H buses, but as Big Lemon found out, it's not the easiest thing to do

No council is allowed to bring any pressure to bear on bus ticket prices - it's actually illegal to do so.

@Lord Bracknell will know more.

I agree that is the case but it still raises the questions why our buses cost so much compared to other cities ?

 

[father_and_son]

Ok, she's the idiot at the front, and she should have questioned the figures when given them to make sure she understood them, but what about the rest of the party. How can you people be voting for the Greens?

Even if she didn't actually know the numbers behind the policy, why on earth is she in the position she is in if she can't wing it with some "old faithful" deflection answers??

Even student teachers are taught how to deal with questions they can't answer and, generally, no ones actually TRYING to catch them out. "That's a very good question Johnny. Why don't you research that for homework and give the class the answer tomorrow?"


"Good question Nick. I don't have the exact figures to hand, but rest assured we will be seeking to build the houses in the most cost effective fashion and ensuring the tax-payer gets value for money and the bidding process isn't a 'jobs for the boys' farce and is fair and transparent."

It's really not that f*cking difficult!

 

[The Large One]

I agree that is the case but it still raises the questions why our buses cost so much compared to other cities ?

Go Ahead know that they have a massive customer base relative to other cities (only London has more bus users per head in the UK) and, because people are prepared to / need to / want to us the bus, they see a cash cow to be milked.

Why make bus prices expensive in a town or city where people don't use them to the same extent?

Sadly, as much as they want to - and I mean all parties here - there is nothing the council can do about it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Surely that's exactly why it should be being discussed? We have a bizarre situation where house prices in the north are stable (or falling) and prices in the south-east (especially London) are rising at several times the inflation rate.

i dont find this at all bizarre, its market forces. what is bizarre is that cost of housing is treated as a national issue when it is only really a problem in the south, and for all the talk of policy on the matter nothing tangible is done.

the building industry could build the house required if they were allowed to, but between greens, locals, newt/bat lovers, government regulations, levies and dysfunctional councils, planning takes years and costs a great deal. costs that a borne by the property value, its why planning permission on an acre of southern green field increases in value some bonkers amount in the order of 50x. next time you hear a politician say they want to build x number of homes, listen for how they actually intend to enable that to happen.

 

[Buzzer]

No council is allowed to bring any pressure to bear on bus ticket prices or have anything to do with them - I believe it's actually illegal to do so.

@Lord Bracknell will know more.

Not so, apparently. Tyne and Wear council laid plans before its regional assembly late last year to take back control of the buses in order to save bus routes from being axed.

"Councillors met yesterday at Newcastle Civic Centre to agree a recommendation to start the process needed to take over bus routes. They were told by Metro-owners Nexus that the changes would allow them to cap future price rises, make travel cheaper for young people and students, introduce simple fares and London-style smart travel and growing services."

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/tyne-wear-councils-agree-bus-5373060
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/nationalise-buses-lose-500-routes-5162568

Sounds EXACTLY what B&H needs and I notice that Brighton buses are ALWAYS threatening to axe routes whenever the ever-increasing bus fares gets mentioned. Bring about affordable and simpler bus fares around town and I guarantee that the council would be onto a vote-winner.

Everyone knows that the Greens stand for more use of public services and those services being for the benefit of the general population rather than private companies. Why have the council not even looked at this possibility? They had a clean slate when elected to be radical with public transport, to really get to grips with Brighton's appalling recycling rates and refuse collection. They've missed the bus now with being bold and imaginative (pun intended).

 

[Gwylan]

i dont find this at all bizarre, its market forces. what is bizarre is that cost of housing is treated as a national issue when it is only really a problem in the south, and for all the talk of policy on the matter nothing tangible is done.

It's bizarre compared to how it's done in other countries. You wouldn't find a house in Munich costing 10 times as much for a similar house in Cologne. Or a house in Lyon costing a tenth of the price of a property in Lille. There are some fluctuations but nothing like the extremes that we have in the UK. And yet the same market forces operate in Germany and France as they do in the UK. And it is bizarre that we have a housing shortage in the south-east while perfectly good homes are being demolished in the north-west

the building industry could build the house required if they were allowed to, but between greens, locals, newt/bat lovers, government regulations, levies and dysfunctional councils, planning takes years and costs a great deal. costs that a borne by the property value, its why planning permission on an acre of southern green field increases in value some bonkers amount in the order of 50x. next time you hear a politician say they want to build x number of homes, listen for how they actually intend to enable that to happen.

Yes, there's a lot of truth in this - look how many housing schemes have been rejected in B&H in the past decade. But it's also the case that builders have got the land, with planning permission and are refusing to build
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...d-plots-of-land-with-planning-permission.html

That's one area where politicians could step in: taxing builders heavily for undeveloped land would concentrate minds wonderfully

 

[The Large One]

Everyone knows that the Greens stand for more use of public services and those services being for the benefit of the general population rather than private companies. Why have the council not even looked at this possibility?

I know that they have. I also have been told that they can't afford a 'war' (to use the Newcastle paper's phrase) on a company which has overseen an almighty increase in passenger numbers over the past 15 years. This is something which put B&H Buses in a very strong position should the council wish to say 'we're taking your bus routes from you...'.

"I would love for the city to run the buses and charge everyone a pound for all day journeys..." - Ian Davey.

How much would it cost to take a highly successful bus franchise into the public domain? And if it could be done, the railways would be back in public hands in no time, given a sympathetic administration.

 

[Buzzer]

How much would it cost to take a highly successful bus franchise into the public domain? And if it could be done, the railways would be back in public hands in no time, given a sympathetic administration.

Nexus who run the buses in Tyneside are also a highly successful bus franchise. It's clear that it can be done, that other councils have looked at it and thought it worthwhile and the comparison with trying to nationalise the railways is not a fair one. We're talking about a bus company within a council not a fully integrated nationwide network with franchise licences.

I know that they have. I also have been told that they can't afford a 'war' (to use the Newcastle paper's phrase) on a company which has overseen an almighty increase in passenger numbers over the past 15 years. This is something which put B&H Buses in a very strong position should the council wish to say 'we're taking your bus routes from you...'.

Why can't the council afford a war? They'd have overwhelming public support and especially with the trains debacle, there's a real appetite for publicly-run public transport. All the while the 'war' is going on, enormous pressure will be bought to bear on the bus companies to justify their prices, they'd also be very wary of cutting bus routes just when a council is accusing them of running for their own benefit and not for us, the public and if the council lose then what will happen? Buses will continue to be run by B&H Buses as they are now and the council can legitimately say that they tried their hardest to put the interests of us, the consumers first. A Green council trying to be green and ethical. B&H council have have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's one area where politicians could step in: taxing builders heavily for undeveloped land would concentrate minds wonderfully

taxes and regulations are the problem, not the solution. does it make much sense to you that a developer would sit on land for fun? there certainly isnt one suggested in that article, except the valid point about business//project planning, for which 2 years land bank seems reasonable.

having planning doesn't mean you can immediately start on site, there are a bunch of levies to be paid, permissions for auxiliary develop may be needed, or amendments to permissions required. so a developer can be sitting on a plot with permission for 30 houses but has to provide new sewage routing and add more social housing to the plans (i know of a specific case...). time and costs. alot of regulation might be sensible in principle, but daft in practice, for example a levy for road/amenity improvements (good) has to be paid up front (bad).

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes, there's a lot of truth in this - look how many housing schemes have been rejected in B&H in the past decade. But it's also the case that builders have got the land, with planning permission and are refusing to build
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...d-plots-of-land-with-planning-permission.html

That's one area where politicians could step in: taxing builders heavily for undeveloped land would concentrate minds wonderfully

Construction pricing is said to have risen by 20 or 25% in the last 18 months alone meaning many sites priced out at £1500 per sq m, are actually going to cost £2000 per sq m to build. Chatting to other professionals one of the key factors to this is rising labour rates due to a lack of skilled trades in this country at present. Developers / housing associations don't generally sit on land with planning permission if they can afford to build.

Where that article falls short is that for most developers / housing suppliers, the planning process is expensive, requires many consultant prepared reports and supporting documentation, and then ends up at appeal after taking 18 months or more - all at risk of a refusal at the end. They may eventually have planning permission, but right now many can't actually afford the build costs.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It's bizarre compared to how it's done in other countries. You wouldn't find a house in Munich costing 10 times as much for a similar house in Cologne. Or a house in Lyon costing a tenth of the price of a property in Lille. There are some fluctuations but nothing like the extremes that we have in the UK. And yet the same market forces operate in Germany and France as they do in the UK. And it is bizarre that we have a housing shortage in the south-east while perfectly good homes are being demolished in the north-west

Those are very selective examples. What about the pre 2007 property bubble in Spain centred around Brits buying in holiday areas (but not, say, Basque country or the centre). Why is Daikenyama in Tokyo so expensive and Yokohama relatively cheaper? Why do penthouses in Miami or New York cost more than a farm property in the mid west of America. Why is North Sydney more expensive to live in than the suburbs of Perth?

 

[The Large One]

Nexus who run the buses in Tyneside are also a highly successful bus franchise. It's clear that it can be done, that other councils have looked at it and thought it worthwhile and the comparison with trying to nationalise the railways is not a fair one. We're talking about a bus company within a council not a fully integrated nationwide network with franchise licences.



Why can't the council afford a war? They'd have overwhelming public support and especially with the trains debacle, there's a real appetite for publicly-run public transport. All the while the 'war' is going on, enormous pressure will be bought to bear on the bus companies to justify their prices, they'd also be very wary of cutting bus routes just when a council is accusing them of running for their own benefit and not for us, the public and if the council lose then what will happen? Buses will continue to be run by B&H Buses as they are now and the council can legitimately say that they tried their hardest to put the interests of us, the consumers first. A Green council trying to be green and ethical. B&H council have have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Specifically I'm talking about a financial war.

I agree about the public support for the trains, but a local issue like B&H Buses, where I don't believe hearts and minds have been won over to the same extent, would not bring the same level of popular support for such move. Look at how bus use is actively despised by some on here.

I fully agree with your sentiments, but knowing the council has looked into it (or rather The Green Party did, not using council money), there's evidently a reason for it. Somewhere down the line, they've felt it's a battle they can't win. If they had a majority on the council, things may be different. In a first-term administration, I guess that they had other, more pressing priorities - like championing bus use in the first place.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Solution for cheaper bus fares in Brighton ?

Brighton & Hove News ‏@bhcitynews 3m3 minutes ago

A Green proposal to solve #brighton and #hove council funding crisis by licensing cannabis and taxing it http://dlvr.it/8kZrsB

 

[Buzzer]

I guess that they had other, more pressing priorities - like championing bus use in the first place.

That doesn't seem a particularly pressing issue given that apparently bus use in B&H is the highest outside of London according to a previous post of yours.

 

[Triggaaar]

"Good question Nick. I don't have the exact figures to hand, but rest assured we will be seeking to build the houses in the most cost effective fashion and ensuring the tax-payer gets value for money and the bidding process isn't a 'jobs for the boys' farce and is fair and transparent."

It's really not that f*cking difficult!

Indeed.

"So you don't know you're own figures then?"

"We have just completed our costings for many things, from housing to the NHS, and I don't know them off by heart yet, but we will be putting the detail into our manifesto that you can inspect and question us on"
and then onto her soundbites about the new houses being a great idea.

I've never seen a leader like it. She's beyond awful under pressure, she hasn't a clue about her party's figures and she doesn't know how to say that. Unforgivable IMO.

 

[The Large One]

That doesn't seem a particularly pressing issue given that apparently bus use in B&H is the highest outside of London according to a previous post of yours.

It has become that in the past four years.

 

[Gwylan]

:does it make much sense to you that a developer would sit on land for fun?

But nor is there any pain in sitting on it; as the article points out, in one case it took nine years from planning permission to build - that's not just paperwork and levies ...

Construction pricing is said to have risen by 20 or 25% in the last 18 months alone meaning many sites priced out at £1500 per sq m, are actually going to cost £2000 per sq m to build.

... which is getting closer to the truth and is something I referred to earlier. It's this spiralling cost of housing that needs to be dealt with. It seems like there's a circular argument here: houses prices are being priced out of people's range because of spiralling costs, partly because of the laws of supply and demand and the shortage of property. There's a shortage of property because of the spiralling costs to build them - that's the vicious circle that needs to broken.

Those are very selective examples. What about the pre 2007 property bubble in Spain centred around Brits buying in holiday areas (but not, say, Basque country or the centre). Why is Daikenyama in Tokyo so expensive and Yokohama relatively cheaper? Why do penthouses in Miami or New York cost more than a farm property in the mid west of America. Why is North Sydney more expensive to live in than the suburbs of Perth?

I quite specifically compared like with like: identical properties in similar sized cities. I also avoided capital cities as they're always more expensive and distort the market

 

[Buzzer]

It has become that in the past four years.

but you posted this earlier:

a company which has overseen an almighty increase in passenger numbers over the past 15 years.

They inherited a town with very high bus usage, it didn't need to be a priority.

Actually, I don't remember them saying that encouraging bus usage was their priority when they campaigned in the last local elections. It certainly wasn't one of their policies from their 2011 manifesto:

http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/a..._Fresh_Start_for_a_Fair_City_low_res_2011.pdf

1. Resist, to the greatest extent possible, the service cuts and privatisation imposed on local councils by the Conservative and Lib Dem Government.
2. End the waste of empty council and privately owned buildings and land to provide affordable workspaces.
3. Retain our commitment to building a new and low carbon Brighton centre on the seafront.
4. Work with Brighton and Hove Seaside Community Homes, housing co-ops, housing associations and the private sector to begin a programme of at least 1,000 new affordable homes.
5. Create an ambitious programme to insulate every home in the city and install renewable energy technologies. To cut fuel poverty and energy bills
6. Produce a Brighton & Hove Housing Design Guide containing minimum acceptable space and design standards for new homes
7. Support high quality and accessible early years learning and do all we can to protect Bright Start, Sure Start and other nurseries.
8. Implement a 20mph speed limit for Brighton and Hove’s residential roads.
9. Drive up recycling and composting rates, and introduce a food waste collection service. To ensure 70% of all Brighton and Hove’s domestic waste is recycled by 2015.
10. Make Brighton and Hove the number one centre for eco-tourism in the new South Downs National Park.
11. Link together the green spaces of Old Steine, Victoria Gardens and St Peter’s Church and re-route the traffic in Valley Gardens.
12. Create local neighbourhood councils with local budgets and decision-making powers.
13. Roll out a ‘Living Wage’ for city council employees.


How many of those pledges have they met or even attempted to tackle, number 9 in particular? And there's absolutely nothing about public transport. By their own targets and pledges, they've been an utter failure as a council, let alone one with a mandate to be radical.