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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As