Freedom Pass to become buses only?

[Shimbleshanks]

If the bus is full, maybe the pensioners should be told to get off and wait for the next one. They aren’t in a rush, they are retired after all.

Good luck with that one - some of the old ladies in our town can be pretty vicious.

 

[Harratt4]

A lot of elderly people are socially isolated and lonely. I'd like to see free off peak rail travel for all, not just Londoners. As people have already said, it's little marginal cost.

Over 60s is a nice perk, but once given, it's politically expensive to remove.

Free off peak rail travel for all will just have to wait for...

I totally agree with this but the problem is that a lot of working age people are lonely isolated and poor - they are currently going out to work and paying for very wealthy pensioners to travel for free, I am afraid, whatever way you cut it, the economics just don't add up. Economists have been warning governments going back to Thatcher, Major and Blair of this but they were all happy to make that the next lot's job to sort out, well now, sadly, the pips are squeaking.

As I said earlier, I have no objection to pensioners paying concessionary rates, but if they want the added utility of faster journeys by rail in London verses the bus, they need to pay for that utility.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

Good luck with that one - some of the old ladies in our town can be pretty vicious.

I think I may be technologically challenged, but there are supposed to be laughing emojis here!!! They keep disappearing!

 

[Haywain]

In my day, if c20% of the population were hoarding 50% of the wealth of the whole nation, I might have called them the elites...

You really are worrying about the wrong people. The top 1% of the population hold 10% of the welath and the top 10% hold 43% of the wealth. Meanwhile, many of those pensioners have theoretical money that is actually tied up in property and isn't readily available to spend or pay taxes.

 

[Watershed]

many of those pensioners have theoretical money that is actually tied up in property and isn't readily available to spend or pay taxes.

Equity release exists for a reason...

 

[z444z]

Well what does it mean.

In my day, if c20% of the population were hoarding 50% of the wealth of the whole nation, I might have called them the elites...

Working class is defined by relationship to the means of production. If you’re working for your wage, rather than exploiting the labour of others for profit, you’re working class, and I would argue that status stays with you once you’re no longer doing either in retirement.

The 20% are not the problem. 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 50%. The 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 70%.

 

[Haywain]

Equity release exists for a reason...

Yes it's an option but it isn't money being readily available.

 

[Harratt4]

You really are worrying about the wrong people. The top 1% of the population hold 10% of the welath and the top 10% hold 43% of the wealth. Meanwhile, many of those pensioners have theoretical money that is actually tied up in property and isn't readily available to spend or pay taxes.

Yes the current generation of pensioners were very adept at gaining wealth through property.
The current generation are also now facing the consequences of that, to...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

Working class is defined by relationship to the means of production. If you’re working for your wage, rather than exploiting the labour of others for profit, you’re working class, and I would argue that status stays with you once you’re no longer doing either in retirement.

The 20% are not the problem. 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 50%. The 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 70%.

individuals may retain that status, but I am afraid the generation as a whole doesn't.

Our generation maybe shouldn't complain so much about the ladder being pulled from us if we hadn't spent so much time pulling it up behind ourselves...

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Equity release exists for a reason...

Such as disinheriting the next generation to push them even further into poverty?

 

[Watershed]

Yes it's an option but it isn't money being readily available.

It's pretty readily available as an option. You can't complain you don't have money readily available whilst sitting on a huge asset you're unwilling to utilise.

Such as disinheriting the next generation to push them even further into poverty?

What an entitled attitude. Inheritance is one of the things that further entrenches the class system, generational wealth and inequality.

More to the point, it's essentially impossible for anyone to predict what, if any, inheritance they might get and when that might happen. You can't be 'pushed' into poverty through not receiving something so unpredictable.

 

[TUC]

Yes the current generation of pensioners were very adept at gaining wealth through property.
The current generation are also now facing the consequences of that, to...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

Were they? That notion is in itself quite a London-centric view in terms of the rise in property values being much greater there than elsewhere.

 

[blimmo]

I am a member of a generation for which it is almost impossible to buy a house. I have *very* little sympathy for anyone who is complaining about needing state support if they own their house.

This doesn't mean I am against encouraging public transport use and offering free travel to some people may be a good way to do that but offering it on the basis that pensioners are poor and therefore need it is ridiculous. If you want to offer free travel to poor people, offer it to poor people, not to all pensioners!

 

[Shimbleshanks]

It's pretty readily available as an option. You can't complain you don't have money readily available whilst sitting on a huge asset you're unwilling to utilise.


What an entitled attitude. Inheritance is one of the things that further entrenches the class system, generational wealth and inequality.

More to the point, it's essentially impossible for anyone to predict what, if any, inheritance they might get and when that might happen. You can't be 'pushed' into poverty through not receiving something so unpredictable.

If they're lucky, my nieces and nephew will get about £100,000 each when I finally croak; hardly likely to make them members of the landed gentry, I would have thought.

 

[Wolfie]

Well such a move, as unpopular as it may be, would in fact level up the pass availability to match those older person passes issued by councils in the provences.

As example: older person pass holders in say Twyford, Berkshire can't use their passes on the Elizabeth line so why does the reverse apply for those passes issued by London Councils and valid right out into Berkshire?

Ironic proposal given that Burnham in Manchester is moving in exactly the opposite direction. Would certainly result in more demands for money raised in London to be spent there rather than subsidising much of the rest of the country.

 

[blimmo]

If they're lucky, my nieces and nephews will get about £100,000 each when I finally croak; hardly likely to make them members of the landed gentry, I would have thought.

That's a deposit for a mortgage. The difference between having to rent and suddenly being able to buy a house is seriously life changing. Being able to save that much money while renting is very difficult for many people.

 

[Wolfie]

London Councils pay for the extra over the ENCTS (English National concessionary Travel Scheme), bus travel passes for over 66 (going up to 67 soon)

They are paying for additional hours (statutory doesn't cover morning peak Mon-Friday), and for use on trains (effectively buying a underground season ticket)

The 60+ (which will have to cover extra year when pension age rises to 67) is a London mayor item, using TfL funds. It is basically giving every Londoner 60-65 (soon to 66) a free annual travelcard (which I think is now £3264). Not every person will use it fully but there are potentially people who would pay fares going to work etc if it didn't exist. The idea was first done when men and women pension age was different, and only covered one sex for 60-64, an average of 2.5 years, will soon be 7 years so nearly 3 times as generous.

The London mayor is up for election 7 May, so mayors policies could all change.

Re your last para, the Standard yesterday suggested that Labour (presumably Khan unless he's had enough) appears to be an absolute shoe-in come the next Mayoral election.

The boroughs moaning most appear to be the Tory outer boroughs. The same areas who destroyed the GLC's progressive fares policy. It would be very interesting to know what their elderly residents/voters think of this - they may just get a very rude awakening.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

That's a deposit for a mortgage. The difference between having to rent and suddenly being able to buy a house is seriously life changing. Being able to save that much money while renting is very difficult for many people.

My relatives will be a bit old for house-buying when the time comes (I hope), but that's besides the point. But you seem to be objecting to the fact that I am using my 'wealth' to help them become property-owners and lift themselves out of poverty?

 

[Watershed]

My relatives will be a bit old for house-buying when the time comes (I hope), but that's besides the point. But you seem to be objecting to the fact that I am using my 'wealth' to help them become property-owners and lift themselves out of poverty?

Are they currently in poverty? If so wouldn't it be rather more generous of you to give them something now?

 

[blimmo]

But you seem to be objecting to the fact that I am using my 'wealth' to help them become property-owners and lift themselves out of poverty?

Yes I am objecting to this. What about their peers who don't happen to have generous/wealthy relatives? Why should your relatives get £100k while their peers get nothing?

 

[Shimbleshanks]

I think there is a danger that we're descending into the politics of envy and giving in to government's attempts to divide and rule. Taking away one group's 'perks' will not necessarily mean that there will be more money magically available to others. If anything, if the government finds that it is successful in taking away the over-60s' free travel, it might then be encouraged to start chipping away at some other group's 'privileges'; next time it could be free childcare, or social security, or maybe even general rail and transport subsidies. If you argue that £100m for Over-60s free rail travel is 'too expensive', someone else might suggest that having a railway from Settle to Carlisle or from Plymouth to Penzance to serve a small population is also 'a waste of money'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

Yes I am objecting to this. What about their peers who don't happen to have generous/wealthy relatives? Why should your relatives get £100k while their peers get nothing?

You seem to be arguing that everyone should live in grinding poverty, a return to the 1950s.

 

[blimmo]

I am arguing that inheritance is inherently () unfair and that high house prices have increased the value of inheritances. I therefore would like to encourage people to reduce the amount of money they pass on by doing equity release on their property. Providing subsidies in order that pensioners don't have to do equity release rather goes against that aim. I agree that removing free public transport from older Londoners is not a particularly good policy.

 

[aron2smith]

Speaking personally, most of my Freedom Pass use is for leisure trips; if I can't go into London for free, likely I'd go somewhere else instead.

This would actually put over 66s in London in a worse position than those in other parts of the country.

If you live in Manchester or a rural area, a bus might be a reasonable option to reach your nearest town or city centre, indeed it may be the only option. But buses just aren't a serious form of transport from most London suburbs into the centre, to the point where they are, effectively, unusable.

From where I live it would be around two hours to the West End or City.

Many of the night buses go from the edge of London to the centre, usually Trafalgar Square. Many of those routes are well over an hour despite lower demand and light traffic conditions. The near blanket 20mph limits and traffic lights really don't help with journey times. And given many of these routes are 2, even 3 routes in the daytime. 2+ hours is definitely a likely journey by bus from anywhere on the edge. Bravely did Euston to Cheshunt by bus once on the day routes, took over 2 and a half hours despite minimal waits between buses. 14 miles, that's an extraordinarily slow speed. People must cycle much faster than that.

To think, there was once a network of limited stop Greenline routes that covered journeys like this with reasonable journey times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

Well such a move, as unpopular as it may be, would in fact level up the pass availability to match those older person passes issued by councils in the provences.

As example: older person pass holders in say Twyford, Berkshire can't use their passes on the Elizabeth line so why does the reverse apply for those passes issued by London Councils and valid right out into Berkshire?

Really anywhere outside London that gets TFL services (bus or train) should be able to opt in, even if an annual fee applies to offset the cost to a county or borough/ district.

I can pay £24/ year for a year of Tyne and Wear Metro travel added to the bus pass despite being 100s of miles away and yet live 2 miles outside London (still built up), which is close enough to regularly use TFL services and nothing similar exists.

 

[Harratt4]

Were they? That notion is in itself quite a London-centric view in terms of the rise in property values being much greater there than elsewhere.

Over-60s own a significant majority of UK housing wealth, 56% in fact (they make up about +/- 20% of the population) of all owner-occupied property value, totaling around £2.9 trillion, with many being mortgage-free, in stark contrast to younger generations who hold much less wealth and significantly more debt. This demographic holds vast equity, but often remains in larger homes, creating a wealth concentration.

I should say so. Those are national figures, not London ones. Of course relative value of property in the South East will be in play here - but I think I would find it hard to argue that today's pensioners did not do very well out of property in their life times. Council homes obtained through right to buy are now worth a lot more - where ever they are located. It isn't London-centric at all.

And this isn't about interclass equity, it is about inter generational equity.

I say again - this could (and should) have all been planned for 30 years ago. That generation didn't when many more palatable options were available. It was kicked down the road and now, sadly, only the unpalatable options remain and I don't believe making the current generation pay for the previous one's inaction is fair. We made our bed...

 

[Spurs]

It won't happen, because the pensioner generation who voted to cripple councils and the wider economy over 4 straight General Elections will never, ever be the ones asked to pay the price of that. We'll keep funding free travel, social care and health bills, we'll never tax their property wealth, and we'll just keep borrowing £150bn a year to pay for it all, no questions asked. Forget about the younger generations who never wanted this to begin with and can't get secure housing or start a family, and haven't had a real wage rise for nigh on 20 years.

 

[John R]

Why would I want to have a night out in Croydon when central London offers so much more?

If you can afford to pay for a night out in central London, is it reasonable that today's taxpayer has to pay your train fare to get there?

 

[RT4038]

Equity release exists for a reason...

Equity release is not free. It is borrowing money, at an interest rate, effectively at the cost to my inheritors. I would only contemplate that in an extreme circumstance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

Over-60s own a significant majority of UK housing wealth, 56% in fact (they make up about +/- 20% of the population) of all owner-occupied property value, totaling around £2.9 trillion, with many being mortgage-free, in stark contrast to younger generations who hold much less wealth and significantly more debt. This demographic holds vast equity, but often remains in larger homes, creating a wealth concentration.

I should say so. Those are national figures, not London ones. Of course relative value of property in the South East will be in play here - but I think I would find it hard to argue that today's pensioners did not do very well out of property in their life times. Council homes obtained through right to buy are now worth a lot more - where ever they are located. It isn't London-centric at all.

Todays pensioners will not do very well out of property in their lifetimes - the value can only be realised by moving out (when dying for example). The value of my house is not much use to me while I still live in it, and there is precious little opportunity for acceptable downsizing to a cheaper property. Those who inherit my money may well do well out of it.

I am arguing that inheritance is inherently () unfair and that high house prices have increased the value of inheritances. I therefore would like to encourage people to reduce the amount of money they pass on by doing equity release on their property. Providing subsidies in order that pensioners don't have to do equity release rather goes against that aim. I agree that removing free public transport from older Londoners is not a particularly good policy.

I'm not interested in equity release. But by all means increase inheritance tax to whatever the younger generation want - it won't affect me, i'll be dead.

 

[jon81uk]

That's a deposit for a mortgage. The difference between having to rent and suddenly being able to buy a house is seriously life changing. Being able to save that much money while renting is very difficult for many people.

That's assuming that by the time they get the inheritance they are of an age where they can still get a mortgage. Likely to be 55+ by the time your parents pass away and then you may struggle to get a mortgage with longer than 12 year term.

 

[RT4038]

Yes I am objecting to this. What about their peers who don't happen to have generous/wealthy relatives? Why should your relatives get £100k while their peers get nothing?

Too bad really. Life has always been a lottery - I could have come into this world the child of a business magnate, or a resident of a Brazilian favella. We aren't born financially equal, and will never be financially equal through our lives. We may have parents who look after us and give us every (financial or non-financial) assistance in life, or we may not. However, many a poor child has become rich, and vice versa of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2026 ==

Are they currently in poverty? If so wouldn't it be rather more generous of you to give them something now?

Not at the cost of my financial security now.

 

[z444z]

Too bad really. Life has always been a lottery - I could have come into this world the child of a business magnate, or a resident of a Brazilian favella. We aren't born financially equal, and will never be financially equal through our lives.

And there’s nothing at all we could do about any of this so why even try, right? Why would you care about your fellow human beings anyway, you’ve got yours, so too bad!

 

[blimmo]

It is borrowing money, at an interest rate, effectively at the cost to my inheritors.

But by all means increase inheritance tax to whatever the younger generation want - it won't affect me, i'll be dead.

Equity release is free (for you and your inheritors) if inheritance tax is 100%... /s

 

[londonbridge]

When would any changes be likely to be implemented? I’m eligible for my 60+ Oyster later this year.

I note you can’t use it between 04:30 and 9:00 however, so I’d still need to pay on the bus to work on my early 6:00am shift.