TfGM Bus franchising

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But aren't you restricted to using the incumbent operators that way? What if one of the operators involved is incapable of running a good service? How does the local authority know it is getting value for money? The whole point of tendering is that your ultimate sanction is that you can get rid of badly performing contractors.

Is it not the case that the Traffic Commissioners already have the ability to remove unsuitable bus operators who do not meet their standards requirement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, I should have made it clear, that I don’t consider those working for the local authorities and the politicians as “in the industry”, and the example you describe perfectly illustrates the point I was trying to make.

No, I included the industry itself. The commercial industry by and large failed to do (or took a very long time to do) quite a number of things it could have done much, much earlier:

• Timetabling and routeing for quality connections both with their own services and the rail service
• Through single fares to remove the penalty for changing bus where a day ticket or season isn't applicable
• Simplifying and publishing single fares so people have the right change ready
• Quality information websites
• Off bus ticketing and dual/triple door to speed boarding (the mind really boggles as to why they didn't do this, because it would considerably reduce PVR on some routes, e.g. Oxford Road where dwell times can be very, very long at some stops e.g. Owen's Park)
• On-board passenger information systems to ease things for occasional users

And all this is due to conservatism - they were already making a decent profit, so why bother changing?

These sorts of thing are almost as important as "tyres on tarmac" for operating a high quality integrated city transport system.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2021 ==

Is it not the case that the Traffic Commissioners already have the ability to remove unsuitable bus operators who do not meet their standards requirement.

"Unsuitable" as far as the Traffic Commissioners are concerned is basically just:

• Continued, long term and provable failure to operate to the timetable (and this, at least pre GPS, was very hard to enforce - I certainly know some small operators that wouldn't be on the road if it was enforced).
• Operation of unroadworthy vehicles or unlicenced drivers.
• Drivers driving in an illegally dangerous manner (again very hard to enforce).

There are maybe a couple of others, but they don't deal with the "general" quality issue. They won't for instance pull operators up for scruffy but road-legal buses, nor for drivers with a presentation/body odour/attitude problem etc, nor those who just drive roughly (but legally) without concern for passenger comfort - these things are still important, though. I had hoped Driver CPC would deal with these things but it was really rather a sham.

Again, the new structure allows TfGM to have far wider enforceable and checkable quality criteria, and I hope they will.

 

[Stan Drews]

No, I included the industry itself. The commercial industry by and large failed to do (or took a very long time to do) quite a number of things it could have done much, much earlier:

• Timetabling and routeing for quality connections both with their own services and the rail service
• Through single fares to remove the penalty for changing bus where a day ticket or season isn't applicable
• Simplifying and publishing single fares so people have the right change ready
• Quality information websites
• Off bus ticketing and dual/triple door to speed boarding (the mind really boggles as to why they didn't do this, because it would considerably reduce PVR on some routes, e.g. Oxford Road where dwell times can be very, very long at some stops e.g. Owen's Park)
• On-board passenger information systems to ease things for occasional users

And all this is due to conservatism - they were already making a decent profit, so why bother changing?

The point you made, to which I was responding, was that money had been available, but had been wasted supporting services that didn’t merit it. That is where those working in the operational side of the industry would have been able to advise where it could have been put to much better use, improving options for many more public transport users. Perhaps doing some of the things you have highlighted above.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point you made, to which I was responding, was that money had been available, but had been wasted supporting services that didn’t merit it. That is where those working in the operational side of the industry would have been able to advise where it could have been put to much better use, improving options for many more public transport users. Perhaps doing some of the things you have highlighted above.

But using it to fund those other items would require the operator to be willing to do them - and they weren't necessarily willing. Though some of the small-operator "soft product" issues (e.g. driver turnout, i.e. being dressed tidily*, speaking fluent English and being vaguely polite to customers, plus having had a shower before attending) could easily be part of the tender documents (though I find it really sad that they need to be, to be honest, as to me they should be a default requirement for any customer-facing job in the UK), as it's primarily small operators on tendered services where I've experienced them.

* That doesn't mean a suit and tie, but it does mean not looking like a building site labourer. As I've said before, a company branded polo, smart trousers or even clean, unripped jeans and shoes would be fine.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Catching up on a few posts here....I won't quote every single one as they tend come off the back of these

But aren't you restricted to using the incumbent operators that way? What if one of the operators involved is incapable of running a good service? How does the local authority know it is getting value for money? The whole point of tendering is that your ultimate sanction is that you can get rid of badly performing contractors.

The traffic commissioners have the ability to manage the most important aspects of bus service operation. Above all, that is safety and reliability. The former is something that we should expect as a given - vehicles should be safe and drivers should be in full compliance with the licensing and legislative requirements (e.g. drivers hours etc) as should the management of the drivers. That operations should be legally compliant is just without argument.

Similarly, operators should be (and are) required to operate in the terms of their registrations. There is some margin on this in that it is unreasonable to expect operators to manage 100% adherence to timetables should they encounter a breakdown, an accident, a set of phantom traffic lights (of which a number mysteriously appeared in between my travel to Bristol for a medical appt, and my return). Obviously, endemic and constant failure to operate as per their registration is indeed managed and is much more closely managed now though we live in times where traffic congestion is more pernicious and more unpredictable than ever.

If operators are unable to do that, then they are at liberty to lose their O license.

However, if you want to take the softer, more subjective view of quality.... well that can also be addressed. Vehicles entering Oxford are bound by quality aspects, as are vehicles using Metrobus infrastructure in Bristol. There is absolutely nothing that prevents Dave's Coaches getting a few e200mmcs from Dawsons or whomever and running from UWE to the City Centre, as long as they meet the criteria set out by the relevant authority (that I think may be West of England Combined Authority). Similarly, the observations of @Bletchleyite often relate to tendered services - again, nothing to stop such requirements being built into a tender spec in terms of livery, driver uniform, vehicle spec. However, such items are usually not and we all know why!

Deregulation in GM was *more* expensive than London franchising for many years. Before 1986 London had heavily subsidised buses. Tendering/privatisation cut costs massively so that London buses were running at near break even for years. Despite cutting costs massively, bus patronage in London didn't fall. At the time London was break even, GM was more expensive they had to pay for tendered buses in the evening and Sunday.

That's a rather imprecise measure of things and the causal factors aren't really addressed. The fact that whilst London's population declined from just over 8m to just over 6.5m from 1960 to 1980 but then grew since then to almost 9.5m whilst Manchester's metro area population declined from 2.4m to 2.25m from 1960 to 1990 and is only 2.7m now. So a burgeoning London population was already in play.

Deregulation was undoubtedly an earthquake but if you strip out the impact of Metrolink, Greater Manchester has not significantly declined since 2005 (IIRC).

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, if you want to take the softer, more subjective view of quality.... well that can also be addressed. Vehicles entering Oxford are bound by quality aspects, as are vehicles using Metrobus infrastructure in Bristol. There is absolutely nothing that prevents Dave's Coaches getting a few e200mmcs from Dawsons or whomever and running from UWE to the City Centre, as long as they meet the criteria set out by the relevant authority (that I think may be West of England Combined Authority). Similarly, the observations of @Bletchleyite often relate to tendered services - again, nothing to stop such requirements being built into a tender spec in terms of livery, driver uniform, vehicle spec. However, such items are usually not and we all know why!

Money is one aspect, but it isn't the only one - lack of competence in tendering authorities can be another. I don't really have that fear about TfGM - like TfL it is a big, relatively well funded operation that will be able to find and employ the right people. At say MK Council it's one bloke who isn't even paid all that much (and probably sadly no longer even has a job now tendered scheduled services have been withdrawn completely). So while they did make attempts at specifying quality type criteria, they tended to be a bit thin, e.g. they would specify vehicles no more than say 3 years old for a contract, but they'd not include that the panels shouldn't all be taped on with gaffer tape, the lower body panels dented to bits, it in dealer white, it driven by a driver who hasn't had a shower for a week etc. (This is not much of an exaggeration).

Of course, once upon a time businesses had the pride not to deliver that sort of rubbish. This is sadly no longer true, and so it does mean tenders have to be VERY tightly specified.

That of course is something TfGM will have to address, otherwise their operation will look like the Aylesbury mob knocking about typically 5-10 minutes early around the MK evening services in whatever old junk they could find and dressed in vest, ripped jeans and mucky trainers (none of this is exaggeration), not like the quality operation they are wanting to project based on the London ideals.

 

[johncrossley]

Deregulation was undoubtedly an earthquake but if you strip out the impact of Metrolink, Greater Manchester has not significantly declined since 2005 (IIRC).

That's why I'm talking about the time between 1986 to 2000, which strips out most of the effects of Metrolink, Ken Livingstone and population. Patronage in GM plummeted immediately after deregulation. Like you say, "an earthquake". Such patronage loss didn't happen in London despite similar huge cost cutting. Everybody goes on about how expensive the London system is but they never mention that GM was more expensive than London until Livingstone, because of the cost of tendering evening and Sunday services. If franchising happened in GM at the same time as in London, it wouldn't be a bad shout to hypothesise that patronage in GM wouldn't have gone down as much as it did before 2000.

Also, why do so many people, especially @Xenophon PCDGS, talk about franchising as if it is equivalent to nationalisation? If franchising is like nationalisation, why was Maggie Thatcher (or at least someone in her government) so keen on having Grey-Green buses passing Big Ben on route 24, to drum home that the Tories were running privatised buses? Maybe he and others are being ironic, but the joke (assuming there is one) is lost on me.

 

[Stan Drews]

But using it to fund those other items would require the operator to be willing to do them - and they weren't necessarily willing.

Willing, or not, they never had the opportunity.

The current fiasco in Cornwall is probably the best example to illustrate the point. Money has been made available, but the local authority has made a complete mess of things. I guarantee that had they gone to the incumbent operators (First etc), they would have suggested ways in which similar levels of funding could have made a much more substantial, long term difference to public transport across the county.

 

[RT4038]

Also, why do so many people, especially @Xenophon PCDGS, talk about franchising as if it is equivalent to nationalisation? If franchising is like nationalisation, why was Maggie Thatcher (or at least someone in her government) so keen on having Grey-Green buses passing Big Ben on route 24, to drum home that the Tories were running privatised buses? Maybe he and others are being ironic, but the joke (assuming there is one) is lost on me.

I think because currently, in Manchester, private bus operators have the right to trade freely on the roads , subject to compliance with rules on notice periods, and quality standards. In a franchised system the operators do not, and are at risk of losing their business in a single competitive tendering round.

In your London example, the private bus operator had won a franchised route from a state owned undertaking that had a legal monopoly for the previous 55 or so years. This operator had not had any right to trade freely on the roads of London in living memory, nor indeed did as a franchised operator. Private London bus companies didn't like losing their businesses in 1933, any less than Manchester ones do in 2021.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think because currently, in Manchester, private bus operators have the right to trade freely on the roads , subject to compliance with rules on notice periods, and quality standards. In a franchised system the operators do not, and are at risk of losing their business in a single competitive tendering round.

In your London example, the private bus operator had won a franchised route from a state owned undertaking that had a legal monopoly for the previous 55 or so years. This operator had not had any right to trade freely on the roads of London in living memory, nor indeed did as a franchised operator. Private London bus companies didn't like losing their businesses in 1933, any less than Manchester ones do in 2021.

I'd have sympathy if it was "mom-and-pop" small businesses running buses in Manchester. It's not, it's large corporations, so loss of such business really just impacts on shareholders (TUPE protects the front-line staff). So this is genuinely of no concern to me whatsoever, it's rather more equivalent to if Tesco has to close a store for some regulatory reason than if a long-established family corner shop had to move on. It's not in my frame of mind to anthropomorphise very large businesses; they are just faceless institutions, abstract concepts, whatever. And as Firstarrivacoachahead are very large firms, the impact on their value will be small overall because they still have their other commercial operations.

In reality, though, in London it is a bit of a "route go round" and very rarely if ever does one operator lose all its business, they gain and lose routes as they go along.

 

[johncrossley]

I think because currently, in Manchester, private bus operators have the right to trade freely on the roads , subject to compliance with rules on notice periods, and quality standards. In a franchised system the operators do not, and are at risk of losing their business in a single competitive tendering round.

In your London example, the private bus operator had won a franchised route from a state owned undertaking that had a legal monopoly for the previous 55 or so years. This operator had not had any right to trade freely on the roads of London in living memory, nor indeed did as a franchised operator. Private London bus companies didn't like losing their businesses in 1933, any more than Manchester ones do in 2021.

It doesn't matter what came immediately beforehand, the end result in both Manchester and London is the same. Privately owned bus companies being contracted to run a service. That can never be considered nationalisation. When other public services are contracted out in the same way there is outrage from the left, for example in refuse collection or in healthcare. Rail franchising is also considered right-wing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't matter what came immediately beforehand, the end result in both Manchester and London is the same. Privately owned bus companies being contracted to run a service. When other public services are contracted out in the same way there is outrage from the left, for example in refuse collection or in healthcare.

I suspect it's because a move from free-market to contracted is a move left, and does leave open the possibility of another jump left, i.e. direct operation, as has for example happened with TfW Rail.

 

[edwin_m]

I think because currently, in Manchester, private bus operators have the right to trade freely on the roads , subject to compliance with rules on notice periods, and quality standards. In a franchised system the operators do not, and are at risk of losing their business in a single competitive tendering round.

There are plenty of businesses in that sort of position - look at some of the framework suppliers to Network Rail for instance. If you sell railway engineering services and lose one of those contracts in what is close to a monopsony*, it's far harder to replace the business than if you're a bus operator trading in multiple places. But there's been no evidence of them having any grounds for legal action, as long as the procurement has been fair and legal.

*a market where there is only one customer.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also, why do so many people, especially @Xenophon PCDGS, talk about franchising as if it is equivalent to nationalisation? If franchising is like nationalisation, why was Maggie Thatcher (or at least someone in her government) so keen on having Grey-Green buses passing Big Ben on route 24, to drum home that the Tories were running privatised buses? Maybe he and others are being ironic, but the joke (assuming there is one) is lost on me.

I did earlier make mention that I live outside the borders of the TfGM empire in the thread and did enquire what was the percentage of those who responded to the consultation when based upon the grand total of those resident in the ten areas that constitute "Greater Manchester" but did not receive an answer to that query. Perhaps my area of residence ruled me out of the discussion.

Great mentions of "democracy" are always forthcoming from those left-leaning politicians who espouse "the will of the people" as a sacred principle, but this time, there was no referendum on the matter of rail franchising, which would allow "the will of the people" to be heard as there was some years ago when such a matter was actually put before the residents of the ten local authorities (some of which were "rock solid" Labour voting areas) for a two ring congestion charge that would financially enable a great move forward in public transport in that conurbation. All ten areas voted overwhelmingly to reject the said proposal.

I do wonder how many people this time were made fully aware of the proposals, as when the matter of the referendum referred to above, full-colour literature was sent to all addresses from what was GMPTE at the time that stated the benefits that would accrue from a "YES" overall majority. Perhaps, this time, that methodology was not used in the knowledge of what had occurred before.

 

[RT4038]

There are plenty of businesses in that sort of position - look at some of the framework suppliers to Network Rail for instance. If you sell railway engineering services and lose one of those contracts in what is close to a monopsony*, it's far harder to replace the business than if you're a bus operator trading in multiple places. But there's been no evidence of them having any grounds for legal action, as long as the procurement has been fair and legal.

*a market where there is only one customer.

The framework suppliers to Network Rail have never been in the position of trading freely with individual passengers, and having the right to carry on their business on this basis, subject to compliance with notice periods and quality standards. The change for private bus operators in Manchester is fundamentally more restrictive, and controlled by a public body, which is why it is being compared to nationalisation.

Whether or not the new position of trading for private bus operators will be the same as sectors of other industries has no bearing on the question posed in #547 that I was providing an answer to.

I'd have sympathy if it was "mom-and-pop" small businesses running buses in Manchester. It's not, it's large corporations, so loss of such business really just impacts on shareholders (TUPE protects the front-line staff). So this is genuinely of no concern to me whatsoever, it's rather more equivalent to if Tesco has to close a store for some regulatory reason than if a long-established family corner shop had to move on. It's not in my frame of mind to anthropomorphise very large businesses; they are just faceless institutions, abstract concepts, whatever. And as Firstarrivacoachahead are very large firms, the impact on their value will be small overall because they still have their other commercial operations.

In reality, though, in London it is a bit of a "route go round" and very rarely if ever does one operator lose all its business, they gain and lose routes as they go along.

Try, for once, to put yourself in their position, to understand why they do not like it and it is being looked at as akin to nationalisation (to answer the question posed in #547).

The rights and wrongs, and whether you personally are concerned for them, is not really relevant to this answer- the fact that the way they are doing business is fundamentally changing from one of free market to a controlled market through tenders controlled by a public body, is.

It doesn't matter what came immediately beforehand, the end result in both Manchester and London is the same. Privately owned bus companies being contracted to run a service. That can never be considered nationalisation. When other public services are contracted out in the same way there is outrage from the left, for example in refuse collection or in healthcare. Rail franchising is also considered right-wing.

But it does matter what went on before. That was free market, with the bus companies largely using their commercial acumen in providing services and attracting individual customers to determine their profitability, a risk but with it the potential of reward. They are moving to a market controlled by a public body, as a single customer, where the profitability will be effectively controlled and the business just a service provider as you say like refuse collection or healthcare. This could be viewed as 'nationalisation', the industry is being controlled by a public body, even if the product is not being directly delivered by that public body. If you have been used to the former, you probably won't like the control of the latter, and therefore it is no surprise that these companies are not happy. Whether the change is good for public policy is another argument.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Try, for once, to put yourself in their position, to understand why they do not like it and it is being looked at as akin to nationalisation (to answer the question posed in #547).

I completely understand why they don't like it, however I don't have any sympathy for them because they are a large faceless organisation on which the overall impact will be minimal if any at all, partly because they are unlikely to lose all operations in the area, and partly because they have operations in so many other places that the worst possible outcome (them losing all routes in Manchester) would still have a tiny impact on the value of the company.

It is very analogous indeed to Tesco being forced to divest a store to Sainsbury's (hardly any effect on the overall company, and the staff just change uniforms) compared to a "mom and pop" corner shop losing its business (possible financial ruin for the family).

The rights and wrongs, and whether you personally are concerned for them, is not really relevant to this answer- the fact that the way they are doing business is fundamentally changing from one of free market to a controlled market through tenders controlled by a public body, is.

Yes, it's a fact. But whether we should address that fact in any way does depend on opinion.

 

[Purple Orange]

It’s strange seeing some people position ‘nationalisation’ as a bad thing in itself. It’s not and it can work for better than private enterprise in some cases. We just need to look at the test & trace system to see that. Thankfully the vaccine rollout was managed by the NHS!

My question about the TfGM bus service model is: does this model resemble the model used in London? If so, that is not national nationalisation, but it does have far more regulatory control exerted over the industry. Something Manchester has lacked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s strange seeing some people position ‘nationalisation’ as a bad thing in itself. It’s not and it can work for better than private enterprise in some cases. We just need to look at the test & trace system to see that. Thankfully the vaccine rollout was managed by the NHS!

My question about the TfGM bus service model is: does this model resemble the model used in London? If so, that is not national nationalisation, but it does have far more regulatory control exerted over the industry. Something Manchester has lacked.

What it is is "re-regulation", not "nationalisation". The two are independent. One is about control, the other is about ownership of the shares.

You could have re-regulation without nationalisation by contracting to private companies for operation as they are planning to do.

You could have nationalisation without re-regulation if the Government, TfGM or whoever took all the shares in the commercial operations but allowing them to continue operating as commercially independent arms-length companies, a bit like the municipals.

 

[johncrossley]

I did earlier make mention that I live outside the borders of the TfGM empire in the thread and did enquire what was the percentage of those who responded to the consultation when based upon the grand total of those resident in the ten areas that constitute "Greater Manchester" but did not receive an answer to that query. Perhaps my area of residence ruled me out of the discussion.

Great mentions of "democracy" are always forthcoming from those left-leaning politicians who espouse "the will of the people" as a sacred principle, but this time, there was no referendum on the matter of rail franchising, which would allow "the will of the people" to be heard as there was some years ago when such a matter was actually put before the residents of the ten local authorities (some of which were "rock solid" Labour voting areas) for a two ring congestion charge that would financially enable a great move forward in public transport in that conurbation. All ten areas voted overwhelmingly to reject the said proposal.

I do wonder how many people this time were made fully aware of the proposals, as when the matter of the referendum referred to above, full-colour literature was sent to all addresses from what was GMPTE at the time that stated the benefits that would accrue from a "YES" overall majority. Perhaps, this time, that methodology was not used in the knowledge of what had occurred before.

How is this at all relevant to the question as to whether franchising is nationalisation?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How is this at all relevant to the question as to whether franchising is nationalisation?

Do you not see socialism in work, in presenting to the electorate "what is good for them" without a full consultation when a precedent already has been established? Incidentally, does "nationalisation" refer to a nationwide rather than a localised area matter?

 

[Llandudno]

I did earlier make mention that I live outside the borders of the TfGM empire in the thread and did enquire what was the percentage of those who responded to the consultation when based upon the grand total of those resident in the ten areas that constitute "Greater Manchester" but did not receive an answer to that query. Perhaps my area of residence ruled me out of the discussion.

Great mentions of "democracy" are always forthcoming from those left-leaning politicians who espouse "the will of the people" as a sacred principle, but this time, there was no referendum on the matter of rail franchising, which would allow "the will of the people" to be heard as there was some years ago when such a matter was actually put before the residents of the ten local authorities (some of which were "rock solid" Labour voting areas) for a two ring congestion charge that would financially enable a great move forward in public transport in that conurbation. All ten areas voted overwhelmingly to reject the said proposal.

I do wonder how many people this time were made fully aware of the proposals, as when the matter of the referendum referred to above, full-colour literature was sent to all addresses from what was GMPTE at the time that stated the benefits that would accrue from a "YES" overall majority. Perhaps, this time, that methodology was not used in the knowledge of what had occurred before.

But if you don’t like risking the likely answer you are going to get in a referendum, don’t ask the question in the first place...

I wonder if Cameron would have offered a Brexit vote if he knew which way the (slight) majority of the electorate would vote?

Most people want improvements to public transport, health and social care, better schools and scrapping of university fees etc but if on the ballot paper there is a box that you have to tick saying that you need to pay an extra £1000 per annum to achieve some improvements, it’s not really surprising that less than half would.

Like I said earlier, don’t ask the question...

 

[Purple Orange]

I am actually struggling to see why this non-issue of nationalisation has anything to do with franchising the bus services in GM. By that I mean I have concluded in my own mind that it irrelevant.

 

[johncrossley]

Do you not see socialism in work, in presenting to the electorate "what is good for them" without a full consultation when a precedent already has been established? Incidentally, does "nationalisation" refer to a nationwide rather than a localised area matter?

How were the two consultations not "full"?

(I hope you are not confusing "consultation" and "negotiation". For example, it is common for employers to consult employees when making redundancies. All it means is that the employer will listen to what the employees have to say and may adjust their plans accordingly. There is no obligation for the employer to revise its plans on any such representations.)

"Nationalisation" in this context usually refers to taking an undertaking into state-ownership, whether that state is the nation state or a subdivision of that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you not see socialism in work, in presenting to the electorate "what is good for them" without a full consultation when a precedent already has been established? Incidentally, does "nationalisation" refer to a nationwide rather than a localised area matter?

"Nationalisation" refers specifically to the transfer of ownership of a private business into public hands. It is simply the direct opposite of "privatisation", which is the transfer of a public business or service into private hands.

An example of privatising Manchester's buses would be if they were directly owned and operated by TfGM, and they moved from there to a system of contracting to a private operator instead.

This is not occurring here, ergo it is not nationalisation. It is re-regulation, i.e. the reversal of de-regulation.

 

[domcoop7]

It’s strange seeing some people position ‘nationalisation’ as a bad thing in itself. It’s not and it can work for better than private enterprise in some cases. We just need to look at the test & trace system to see that. Thankfully the vaccine rollout was managed by the NHS!

My question about the TfGM bus service model is: does this model resemble the model used in London? If so, that is not national nationalisation, but it does have far more regulatory control exerted over the industry. Something Manchester has lacked.

That's way off topic for this discussion, and also wrong.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a "the NHS". There are literally hundreds of different quasi-independent organisations that together are called "the NHS". To say "the NHS" has done X, Y or Z, is as meaningless as saying roads in England are well maintained because they are all managed by "the Council". So for vaccine rollout there is Public Health England, NHS Improvement (which currently calls itself NHS England), the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation, a whole range of NHS foundation trusts, local authority teams, private company pharmacies, private company GPs and primary care providers, and probably some others that I've missed out. The vaccines themselves were of course created by private companies, independent universities and government funding. NHS Test and Trace is likewise run by Public Health England, NHS Improvement (which currently calls itself NHS England), NHS X, a series of processing laboratories, and the call centres and contact tracing teams. The tests themselves are manufactured by private companies.

The irony I guess is that just like Greater Manchester bus franchising, ones politics will tint how one sees it. If you're on the left, you'll see bus franchising as "nationalisation". I quoted some tweets upthread that were put out or re-tweeted by Andy Burnham, where he's deliberately encouraged people to think that. You'll see vaccine rollout as nationalisation. But you'll see Test and Trace as being evil private companies getting £35 billion. In reality, there's the same level of private sector involvement in bus franchising as there is in NHS Test and Trace. And a large amount of private sector involvement in the vaccine rollout too.

I did earlier make mention that I live outside the borders of the TfGM empire in the thread and did enquire what was the percentage of those who responded to the consultation when based upon the grand total of those resident in the ten areas that constitute "Greater Manchester" but did not receive an answer to that query. Perhaps my area of residence ruled me out of the discussion.

Great mentions of "democracy" are always forthcoming from those left-leaning politicians who espouse "the will of the people" as a sacred principle, but this time, there was no referendum on the matter of rail franchising, which would allow "the will of the people" to be heard as there was some years ago when such a matter was actually put before the residents of the ten local authorities (some of which were "rock solid" Labour voting areas) for a two ring congestion charge that would financially enable a great move forward in public transport in that conurbation. All ten areas voted overwhelmingly to reject the said proposal.

I do wonder how many people this time were made fully aware of the proposals, as when the matter of the referendum referred to above, full-colour literature was sent to all addresses from what was GMPTE at the time that stated the benefits that would accrue from a "YES" overall majority. Perhaps, this time, that methodology was not used in the knowledge of what had occurred before.

The answer is, of course, hardly any. Just like the "clean air zone" consultation that GM run, in which the entire city region - including largely rural areas in the north of GM and in Saddleworth - is going to have restriction imposed. Nobody I ever speak to has heard of either of these things. In fact most people didn't even know we had an elected mayor until the press conferences at the lockdown over tier 2! Indeed the very setting up of GM and the elected mayor was done without consultation, precisely because they knew full well the electorate wouldn't agree to paying more council tax for no particular benefit.

And that for me is what's important here.

What will the benefit be? What will the cost be? I sincerely hope to be proven wrong. But all indications are the benefits will be "not much, for most people" and the cost will be "increase council tax, reduced services, reduced buses, increased fares, lots of moaning at the government saying its their fault GM doesn't get cheap fares because London's took the money, yellow painted buses, and more strikes."

 

[Bletchleyite]

What will the benefit be? What will the cost be? I sincerely hope to be proven wrong. But all indications are the benefits will be "not much, for most people" and the cost will be "increase council tax, reduced services, reduced buses, increased fares, lots of moaning at the government saying its their fault GM doesn't get cheap fares because London's took the money, yellow painted buses, and more strikes."

I can certainly confirm that the latter can't really be the case, because the employees will still be employed by the operator and can only strike over valid grievances with that operator, and not with TfGM as a whole. There is and will remain no scope at all for a co-ordinated all-Manchester bus strike, just as the only way there can presently be a UK national rail strike is if it occurs at Network Rail.

It might slightly reduce the operator's ability to resolve one, though, as at present if there is a strike over pay, fares can be increased to fund increased pay, whereas in the new system the operator will be paid based on the contract they signed and won't have any scope to change that funding income until the contract is next let. This being the case it's not unlikely that a mistake in bidding too low for a given route or set of routes may result in an inability to fund higher pay to resolve a pay strike. This sort of situation has arisen on the railway, e.g. with regard to DOO on Northern.

 

[johncrossley]

There have been very few bus strikes affecting the whole of London. Mostly they only affect one company, and therefore only a small proportion of routes. A lot of the time there are other companies serving the same roads or roads nearby.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There have been very few bus strikes affecting the whole of London. Mostly they only affect one company, and therefore only a small proportion of routes. A lot of the time there are other companies serving the same roads or roads nearby.

There cannot be an all-London bus strike unless it is done unlawfully. One can only legally strike over a grievance with one's own employer, and that is Stagecoach, First, Go Ahead or whoever, not TfL/TfGM.

It's often said, though I doubt anyone can really know, that this was one key reason for the piecemeal privatisation of the railway, because it renders most potential national rail strikes unlawful.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

At the risk of drifting off topic but this is quasi-nationalisation.

The property assets, as initially proposed, were to be taken at a "fair market value" (i.e. base property worth) compulsorily. The current owners would essentially lose any inherent value that those operations have. Now, it appears that there is some view of "sticking it to the man" and not being bothered because these are faceless organisations etc and so it's of no consequence. Well, that's not really the case. Firstly, whilst a number of provisions are protected by TUPE, not all of them are. So if you're a driver etc, then anything pension related is excluded. Secondly, few of us have copper bottomed, defined benefit pensions so we are reliant on money purchase schemes that rely on pension fund investors - just the same funds that invest in businesses like Stagecoach, Go Ahead etc for our future pension provision. Thirdly, whilst we have lost firms like Jim Stones, there are still businesses like Stotts that are still family run. It should be noted that when Jim Stones decided to shut up shop, they were resigned to having a fire sale rather than selling the business as the franchising proposals as published essentially removed the value from that business. I'm not equating this to a crime but it is far from victimless or having detrimental personal impacts.

There have been consultations undertaken. One remembers the one on a congestion charge for Greater Manchester which, even though the benefits would have been major and could be ploughed into metrolink, rail as well as buses, were firmly rejected. This latest consultation was all about franchising; I have no idea as to the legal merits of the judicial reviews that Stagecoach and Rotala are seeking, but the consultation seemed to very much in the Brexit mode - think of the sunlit uplands and there might be the odd downside but don't be worrying about that. Think of "taking back control". Similarly, a lot was said about the end game being integration when it shouldn't be; integration should be a means of achieving higher public transport use, reducing private car usage, and improving the environment both locally and globally.

As for the mention that nationalisation isn't a bad thing and looking at the NHS. The concern is that a market led approach to healthcare leads to clinical decisions being made for financial and not clinical reasons. That's why further privatisation in the NHS is not something most people (including me) are in favour of. However, we have plenty of examples of how direct nationalisation has not served various industries well. Usually as a consequence that political machinations tend to take over. You can look at the privatisation of the energy industry and how archaic the CEGB was, for instance. The amount of bureaucracy was appalling and investment decisions were often impacted by lack of capital as monies were funnelled to things like the NHS or education or defence - all things in themselves that are required.

There's a fundamental issue here that again no-one has yet been able to answer. Taking the continent (and London to a lesser degree), they have better public transport because funding is made available. In GM, there's a one off £135m just to get up and running, and then what? Better bus priority isn't on the agenda and even if it were, you could do that NOW. Service reductions from mythical overprovision or duplication that doesn't really exist?

There are better ways forward than these proposals but it's not about that; it's about control rather than coordination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the risk of drifting off topic but this is quasi-nationalisation.

I suppose the specific issue of the depot property is, i.e. it was a nationalisation of the depots. The change to the operations categorically is not.

Thirdly, whilst we have lost firms like Jim Stones, there are still businesses like Stotts that are still family run. It should be noted that when Jim Stones decided to shut up shop, they were resigned to having a fire sale rather than selling the business as the franchising proposals as published essentially removed the value from that business. I'm not equating this to a crime but it is far from victimless or having detrimental personal impacts.

Jim Stones chose not to play the franchising game. He could have instead chosen to stay in business and bid for routes, surely? There are a few relatively small operators that come up on London contracts, e.g. Sullivan Buses, it's not all the big boys. And small operators can thrive on contracts - "Red *" and Z&S of Aylesbury (i.e. "the Aylesbury mob"), other than their smallish coaching operations, very much concentrate on tendered work and do very little if anything commercially.

There are better ways forward than these proposals but it's not about that; it's about control rather than coordination.

I think this is in some ways a bit like the Brexit argument and why the "Remain" argument in many ways failed, because it was the wrong argument. Without delving into this too deeply here as it would definitely be OT to do so, many pro-Brexit people take the view that they want to "take back control" at all costs. The Remain argument missed that, as it concentrated on short-term disadvantages - valid ones, but not what the Leave argument was actually about.

This is similar. I do not want public transport controlled by private companies, because it is a strong ideological belief of mine that basic public services should be under public control. I believe that long-term the best outcomes can be achieved in a city public transport system by one "guiding mind" controlling what happens to the overall network (and it being treated as one network rather than a collection of different modes). Thus, I am in favour of this regardless of any short-term disadvantages it may bring.