11101
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 21,554
Wasn't the funding explained in the video?
Explained as well as all the other bribes on offer.
Wasn't the funding explained in the video?
Explained as well as all the other bribes on offer.
There are about 9m 16-25 year olds. So if they are saving up to £1000 each then the cost is up to £9bn
A saving is not the same as a cost.....
It's lost revenue
It's lost revenue
Magic money tree it is then.
There's no basis for assuming every applicable person would use the service currently so it's redundant.
The only lost revenue is to the current user base and the cost of supporting increased usage if it rises, which would be limited as buses are always empty anyway.
Besides its putting money back into the pockets of the public so they can spend, isn't that what you Tories love?
There's no basis for assuming every applicable person would use the service currently so it's redundant.
The only lost revenue is to the current user base and the cost of supporting increased usage if it rises, which would be limited as buses are always empty anyway.
Besides its putting money back into the pockets of the public so they can spend, isn't that what you Tories love?
They are 'spending'. Up to £1000 on bus passes. Or doesn't that count as goods or services?
Tell you what lets give them a grand a year to spend on beer. They will spend the savings elsewhere. Maybe on bus services.And they'll spend that money elsewhere (maybe even on local businesses) so whats the problem?
Which (they'd argue) is offset by the fact it increases social mobility by making transport to and from work easier, giving people more money to invest in the economy.
It's undoubtedly a slightly cynical giveaway to help a segment of the population that votes Labour...but why should they be criticised for that anymore than the Tories are for consistently pandering to their elderly voters?
A sunk cost would be something that never gets used, will never get used and should never be used. Say, for example, nuclear capabilities. A free bus service will get used by people who want to get from point A to point B. And check this, as it seems to foreign to you, point B will sometimes be things like their place of work, school or even a charity where they volunteer.All of which is true but what real benefit does it provide either to the people or to the country? Anyone working is unlikely to make any changes to their lives based on the price of a bus fare. For anyone not working, its not going to spur them into getting a job. It will just be a sunk cost the country gains nothing from. It's a giveaway to a core voter base that haven't seemed to grasp yet that someone always has to pay, no matter what some might tell them.
Tell you what lets give them a grand a year to spend on beer. They will spend the savings elsewhere. Maybe on bus services.
Beer isn't an essential service that by making free would benefit the local economy and young struggling individuals.
Your issue is clearly that someone who isn't you (and its not me either btw not that id get the bus ever) could be getting something for free, not the cost. Not sure why you feel it necessary to bring up ridiculous costings and arguments.
Edit: actually I don't have an issue with the policy itself, but it's just another poorly thought through giveaway than generates little benefit, to a core voter base that haven't seemed to grasp yet that someone always has to pay, no matter what some might tell them.
Again - why's this logic not being applied to the elderly who constantly get help from the Tories because they vote for them?
because the basic moral standpoint is that the elderly have already made their contribution to society.
Again - why's this logic not being applied to the elderly who constantly get help from the Tories because they vote for them?
Of course, so like any age group they're entitled to plenty of help from the state, as they often receive. The point is why they disproportionately receive extra help that won't be able to be given to future generations who currently find it considerably more difficult to get on the housing market and find stable work to start building a pension etc.
"I might be part of the problem, and might vote the party that actively makes it worse but it's okay because I disagree with it"
“It would have been in a Quad meeting, so either Cameron or Osborne. One of them – I honestly can’t remember whom – looked genuinely nonplussed and said, ‘I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing – it just creates Labour voters.’ They genuinely saw housing as a petri dish for voters. It was unbelievable,” he said.
You do."I might speak in tory cliches and paint jezza as the antichrist but it's okay because I can pretend to know everything about a random person on the internet"
I have a lot sympathy with younger people regarding the housing market but it is not the elderly's fault. Many of the older generation benefitted from the right to buy. This was a decent scheme and very popular. My own parents (who had sod all) were able to buy their council house. It cost £2,400 in 1974 and my mum had no idea where we would find the £4 a week it would cost. I sold same house on behalf of my family after mum died in 2014. It went for £187k. Why? Three reasons in my opinion. Failure to build enough council houses in the intervening years. Population growth due to excess immigration. And the uncontrolled London housing market driving up prices elsewhere. Buy-to-let is a by product of all that because most people got into it to capitalise on fast rising prices. People could make £50k in 6 months without even having a tenant. Loads of people started doing it - even hard line Labour voters. We have one additional property that we let out which was an inheritance from my mother-in-law. I truly believe that young people should be helped to get on the ladder. So even though I may vote Tory I do believe that the government should build lots more council housing as well as encouraging social and affordable housing.
"when it doubt, turn into a toddler and hope for sympathy"
I'm not saying older people are evil or even bad or anything - I'm just saying that many of them financially got a much better deal than this generation are getting when it comes to housing, jobs etc, and whereas we don't batter an eyelid at the many financial perks they receive even when they don't need any of them, attempts to give anything to younger voters are automatically cast off as 'bribes' and unnecessary handouts as opposed to Corbyn just trying to incentivise his core voter base in the same way the Tories try to keep their core base on their side with preferable policies, the primary one of course being Brexit which is driven by the older sectors of the population in spite of the fact many youngsters fear the lasting economic impact it'll have. One is seen as wise electoral policy; the other gets cast off as economic mismanagement.
it's brave of you to whip out the biggest cliche moments after being accused of using nothing butOr use entitlement arguments
Yeah like 'people with wealth should contribute to their home care' rather than relying on the tax payer - many of whom are cash-strapped - gets slammed as a dementia tax by LabourWhen the Conservatives introduce a new millennial railcard to give subsidised travel to people aged 26-30... I don't think I heard a single question about 'how much it would cost the Government' or it being a waste of money... a bribe to young people etc.
Labour make a policy offering free bus travel to young people and Conservatives are up in arms about it. Just shows that it isn't about policy really.