Skip to main content

Free bus pass value for money. Keep your hands off Mr Clegg.

Free bus passes for the elderly are under threat with funding reduced by more than a quarter. Some transport bosses have warned that the scheme will become unaffordable.

Nick Clegg wants to restrict eligibility, arguing it is unfair that wealthy pensioners should also get the  concession. But does Mr Clegg really understand the value of the bus pass scheme for the elderly? And what of the consequences of means testing? Would it really be fair that one pensioner who judiciously saved for retirement should be denied a bus pass, while another who did not do so receives it?

Not long ago I met a lady coming off the train laden with several bags which I offered to help carry. "I'm only going to the bus stop." She explained, which was handy because I was catching a bus too.

I had daily gone to the station by car but now I was using my free bus pass. There was an hourly service that passed through my village and stopped at Leighton Buzzard station.

 "Are you going far?" I asked.
"I'm visiting my daughter" She explained. "She lives in Nottingham."
"Nottingham?"
"Yes."
"But how are you getting to Nottingham from here?" Nottingham was a long distance.
"I'm  getting the bus to Milton Keynes."

She would get another bus, and then another. She had planned it out, and she had done it before.
It took a long time but she could travel free, and that made all the difference.

We were united by our bus passes. I was saving fuel and she was saving money. We were both keeping fit. Or at least she was.

Bus passes do more than simply giving free travel. They enable people to get out and about, to maintain friendships and links with the community. They can prevent loneliness and isolation. They can bring people together; keep people in touch.

A recent study by researchers at Imperial College, London, found that free bus passes encourage the over 60s to be more active. They examined data from the National Travel Survey from 2005 to 2008. The free bus pass was introduced in 2006. They found that free bus passes had encouraged holders to walk more, at least three or four times a week; good for health and ultimately the health budget. A small amount of regular exercise such as walking reduces the risk of disability in older people. 

Postscript

A principal argument against the universality of the bus pass is the apparent unfairness: why should millionaires get one free too, surely that is unfair. Well it might be if indeed many millionaires applied for one.  But this kind of argument seeks to make a general case by example of an extreme. When I ask what threshold of 'wealth' there should be I rarely get an answer that makes much sense, or that wouldn't create more unfairness at the margin.  I have yet to see any flesh on the bones of Mr Clegg's position.

We should make no mistake that the real agenda here is cuts. The cost to the exchequer of free bus passes is around £1bn, that of the winter fuel allowance is £3bn.  Once again it is easy for politicians to divide the community on the issue of 'fairness'; what they won't yet do is to say what their real policy would be.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't