SNP pressed to back bus bill and alienate Souter Stagecoach founder and SNP donor is against reregulation of buses
By Paul Hutcheon,
Scottish Political Editor SNP MINISTERS are to be asked to support a new transport bill that would upset the commercial interests of the Nationalists' main financial backer.
Labour MSP Charlie Gordon plans to introduce legislation to regulate the bus network - a policy opposed by Stagecoach owner and SNP donor Brian Souter.
The policy would take power away from bus companies and give local authorities control over lucrative routes.
Gordon, who represents Glasgow Cathcart, will launch his draft Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill when MSPs return from the recess in the autumn.
Labour believes the status quo, in which a deregulated bus network means companies can cherry-pick the best routes, leaving some areas of Scotland isolated by poor services.
Gordon's bill would give councils the power to intervene in the market and tender services through existing "quality contracts", set up by the former Labour transport minister Sarah Boyack.
The new legislation would allow local authorities to award lucrative routes to bus operators on the condition they served lower density areas as well.
The beefed-up quality contracts would also contain safeguards for workers' terms and conditions, Gordon said.
The bill is likely to put pressure on the SNP government, as the Nationalists' biggest donor runs one of Scotland's most prominent bus companies.
Brian Souter, who runs Stagecoach, provided the SNP with £500,000 to fight their successful election campaign, a donation that gave the Nationalists a financial edge over their rivals.
The Souter donation coincided with the SNP declining to include a pledge to reregulate the bus network in its manifesto.
The party had included the policy in its 2003 Holyrood manifesto, while activists also backed the move at the SNP conference three years later.
The policy was later dropped amid claims the SNP hierarchy did not want to make a promise that would alienate one of its main supporters.
Gordon said of his plans: "My bill would empower local authorities to intervene in parts of the country where there has been market failure in terms of bus provision."
He added: "I think Lothian Buses would support it, and I think First Group would listen to what I have to say. However, I think it is inconceivable that Brian Souter would agree to it, as I have been told he doesn't like similar proposals at Westminster."
A spokesman for Stagecoach said: "I would describe this proposal as unnecessary and misguided. Partnership between operators and local authorities in Scotland means bus use in Scotland is thriving. It would be tampering with a system that is benefiting passengers and which is good for the economy."
Green MSP Patrick Harvie said: "We're pleased that Labour are bringing forward a bill on bus reregulation, despite eight years of inactivity when they were in power. Just this month, parliament voted by a substantial margin for a Green amendment on this issue, so the timing is good, provided Labour's ideas go far enough and can deliver the improved bus services and reduced fares we need to see across Scotland."
An SNP spokesperson said: "We will study the details of his proposal in due course."
|
|
Posted by: JWil, Lanarkshire on 11:37pm Sat 28 Jun 08
Is this just mischieve making to wrong foot the SNP or a genuine attempt to improve services? If the latter why didn't they do it when they were in power?
Is this just mischieve making to wrong foot the SNP or a genuine attempt to improve services? If the latter why didn't they do it when they were in power?
Posted by: BM, Edinburgh on 11:44pm Sat 28 Jun 08
Won't this mean that Councils will effectively be handing out monopolies on running bus services? Why don't they just run their own bus service in competition instead?
Won't this mean that Councils will effectively be handing out monopolies on running bus services? Why don't they just run their own bus service in competition instead?
Posted by: Plobotsky on 12:09am Sun 29 Jun 08
This is going to be fun.
The SNP fans will be stuck between wanting to see better regulated public transport, in line with their 2006 national conference policy, and slagging off what appears to be a sensible proposal, by a Labour MSP with extensive local goverment experience.
A proposal which will just happen to disadvantage a multi-millionnaire bus ownwer who got rich by undercutting competitors' fares till they went out of business or withdrew from the market, and then jacked up the fares and cut evening services. And who owns the SNP.
What to do! What to do!
Of course if Mr Gordon really wanted to be naughty he'd prepare a Bill that was based on the SNP's 2006 conference policy. Just a thought.
This is going to be fun.
The SNP fans will be stuck between wanting to see better regulated public transport, in line with their 2006 national conference policy, and slagging off what appears to be a sensible proposal, by a Labour MSP with extensive local goverment experience.
A proposal which will just happen to disadvantage a multi-millionnaire bus ownwer who got rich by undercutting competitors' fares till they went out of business or withdrew from the market, and then jacked up the fares and cut evening services. And who owns the SNP.
What to do! What to do!
Of course if Mr Gordon really wanted to be naughty he'd prepare a Bill that was based on the SNP's 2006 conference policy. Just a thought.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:16am Sun 29 Jun 08
Plobotsky on 12:09am today
"better regulated public transport"
Have you seen the bill plob?
How can you tell it will be 'better'
If it's worth the paper it's written then I'm sure it will be considered, sounds more like a council monopolising scheme from the details above.
Are the councils going to pay for high fuel prices?
Plobotsky on 12:09am today
"better regulated public transport"
Have you seen the bill plob?
How can you tell it will be 'better'
If it's worth the paper it's written then I'm sure it will be considered, sounds more like a council monopolising scheme from the details above.
Are the councils going to pay for high fuel prices?
Posted by: Plobotsky on 12:56am Sun 29 Jun 08
Wardog - nobody's seen the proposed Bill, but if creepy Mister Souter is against it, you can bet it will be worth supporting.
Wardog - nobody's seen the proposed Bill, but if creepy Mister Souter is against it, you can bet it will be worth supporting.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 1:04am Sun 29 Jun 08
Plobotsky on 12:56am today
Possibly - I'll wait to see the details of it before i pass judgement, I've got some time for Bill Butler but from what's written above sounds like old school cooncil tinkering and union meddling.
Not good for bus customers.
Plobotsky on 12:56am today
Possibly - I'll wait to see the details of it before i pass judgement, I've got some time for Bill Butler but from what's written above sounds like old school cooncil tinkering and union meddling.
Not good for bus customers.
Posted by: Joe Middleton, Edinburgh on 4:12am Sun 29 Jun 08
The SNP (unlike Labour) are not actually ran by their donors, but by their members. Remember their position on s28?
If Gordon comes up with a bill which works and is logical then I would expect the SNP government to back it.
The fact something isn't included in a manifesto does not mean that it is not a long term political objective.
The SNP (unlike Labour) are not actually ran by their donors, but by their members. Remember their position on s28?
If Gordon comes up with a bill which works and is logical then I would expect the SNP government to back it.
The fact something isn't included in a manifesto does not mean that it is not a long term political objective.
Posted by: Garry Otton, Scottish Media Monitor com on 8:57am Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Joe Middleton[/bold] wrote:
The SNP (unlike Labour) are not actually ran by their donors, but by their members. Remember their position on s28? If Gordon comes up with a bill which works and is logical then I would expect the SNP government to back it. The fact something isn\'t included in a manifesto does not mean that it is not a long term political objective. [/quote] The SNP's stand on the repeal of Section 28 was certainly [bold]NOT[/bold] unequivocal.
And at a lecture held in the name of one of Scotland's most notorious homophobes, Salmond has promised to roll out more sectarian and Islamic schools (Sunni, sh'ia... he didn't say).
The story of the repeal is currently being serialised on the Scottish Media Monitor site.
Joe Middleton wrote:
The SNP (unlike Labour) are not actually ran by their donors, but by their members. Remember their position on s28? If Gordon comes up with a bill which works and is logical then I would expect the SNP government to back it. The fact something isn\'t included in a manifesto does not mean that it is not a long term political objective.
The SNP's stand on the repeal of Section 28 was certainly
NOT unequivocal.
And at a lecture held in the name of one of Scotland's most notorious homophobes, Salmond has promised to roll out more sectarian and Islamic schools (Sunni, sh'ia... he didn't say).
The story of the repeal is currently being serialised on the Scottish Media Monitor site.
Posted by: Martin, Edinburgh on 10:12am Sun 29 Jun 08
Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?
Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?
Posted by: wullie on 10:17am Sun 29 Jun 08
Charlie Gordon MSP said of his plans: [italic]"My bill would empower local authorities to intervene in parts of the country where there has been market failure in terms of bus provision."[/italic]
Since his party have been in power up until last year why is Mr Gordon only now saying something is wrong.
Charlie Gordon and his party have had plenty of time to introduce legislation before, so why an issue now that the SNP are in government.
Fair play Labour at it's most honest best again is it Mr Gordon?
Charlie Gordon MSP said of his plans:
"My bill would empower local authorities to intervene in parts of the country where there has been market failure in terms of bus provision."
Since his party have been in power up until last year why is Mr Gordon only now saying something is wrong.
Charlie Gordon and his party have had plenty of time to introduce legislation before, so why an issue now that the SNP are in government.
Fair play Labour at it's most honest best again is it Mr Gordon?
Posted by: Rant Reviewer, Monitering the Scottish Media Moniter on 10:34am Sun 29 Jun 08
Garry Otton, Scottish Media Monitor com on 8:57am today
[quote]The story of the repeal is currently being serialised on the Scottish Media Monitor site[/quote]
We wait with baited breath......yawn
Garry Otton, Scottish Media Monitor com on 8:57am today
The story of the repeal is currently being serialised on the Scottish Media Monitor site
We wait with baited breath......yawn
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:41am Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Martin[/bold] wrote:
Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?[/quote] It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to raise the issue when Labour at Westminster has presided over sky-high levels of fuel duty and is therefore at least partly responsible for the terrible state in which many bus operators find themselves.
As a result of the massive increase in fuel costs, even since the budget, there is now a strong case for reviewing the entire scheme, with a view to making it much more effective rather than more restrictive.
With regards to regulation, the voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an good service to passengers across Scotland; Stagecoach and First Group have had unparalleled global success, achieved in a de-regulated bus environment; Lothian Buses have been named the best bus company in the United Kingdom for 2007, this success has been achieved since the de-regulation of municipal bus companies under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 198.
By all means these should be reviewed further, but it is not yet clear from the article above exactly how Charlie Gordon's bill would improve things for customers.
Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous administration chose not to grant eligibility to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance when they created the National Concessionary Travel Scheme, this could also be reviewed in an effort to extend this programme.
A review of the future levels of bus service operators grant, possibly restructuring the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused.
The Scottish Government should review the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant in consultation with the industry
A review of the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport
A review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts that inhibit multi-modal travel would also be a good idea.
Further regulation however is simply a union Trojan horse and not in the interest of the millions of bus customers in Scotland today. Hence Labour's excitement at introducing this whilst in opposition rather than when in Government.
Martin wrote:
Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?
It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to raise the issue when Labour at Westminster has presided over sky-high levels of fuel duty and is therefore at least partly responsible for the terrible state in which many bus operators find themselves.
As a result of the massive increase in fuel costs, even since the budget, there is now a strong case for reviewing the entire scheme, with a view to making it much more effective rather than more restrictive.
With regards to regulation, the voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an good service to passengers across Scotland; Stagecoach and First Group have had unparalleled global success, achieved in a de-regulated bus environment; Lothian Buses have been named the best bus company in the United Kingdom for 2007, this success has been achieved since the de-regulation of municipal bus companies under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 198.
By all means these should be reviewed further, but it is not yet clear from the article above exactly how Charlie Gordon's bill would improve things for customers.
Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous administration chose not to grant eligibility to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance when they created the National Concessionary Travel Scheme, this could also be reviewed in an effort to extend this programme.
A review of the future levels of bus service operators grant, possibly restructuring the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused.
The Scottish Government should review the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant in consultation with the industry
A review of the Competition Commission's stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport
A review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts that inhibit multi-modal travel would also be a good idea.
Further regulation however is simply a union Trojan horse and not in the interest of the millions of bus customers in Scotland today. Hence Labour's excitement at introducing this whilst in opposition rather than when in Government.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:43am Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote][bold]wullie[/bold] wrote:
Charlie Gordon MSP said of his plans: [italic]"My bill would empower local authorities to intervene in parts of the country where there has been market failure in terms of bus provision."[/italic]
Since his party have been in power up until last year why is Mr Gordon only now saying something is wrong.
Charlie Gordon and his party have had plenty of time to introduce legislation before, so why an issue now that the SNP are in government.
Fair play Labour at it's most honest best again is it Mr Gordon? [/quote] If bus travellers today were asked what they want from their bus services, not many would come up with "effective implementation of regulatory arrangements".
If anything is needed in the industry, it must surely be stability in costs to operators and improved quality service at an affordable price to the public, which would allow them comfortably to switch from their cars to buses and trains.
wullie wrote:
Charlie Gordon MSP said of his plans: "My bill would empower local authorities to intervene in parts of the country where there has been market failure in terms of bus provision."
Since his party have been in power up until last year why is Mr Gordon only now saying something is wrong.
Charlie Gordon and his party have had plenty of time to introduce legislation before, so why an issue now that the SNP are in government.
Fair play Labour at it's most honest best again is it Mr Gordon?
If bus travellers today were asked what they want from their bus services, not many would come up with "effective implementation of regulatory arrangements".
If anything is needed in the industry, it must surely be stability in costs to operators and improved quality service at an affordable price to the public, which would allow them comfortably to switch from their cars to buses and trains.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:51am Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Martin[/bold] wrote:
Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?[/quote]
Labour now & the Greens like to argue that because Lothian Buses is a council-owned company, its success is a reason for re-regulation.
Chief executive of Lothian Buses, Mr Neil Renilson, during the Local Government and Transport Committee's inquiry into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 passionately advocated against further regulation of our bus services, noting that Lothian Buses is wholly deregulated, which required local authorities to establish their municipal bus funds as ''arm's-length companies''
Speaking of Labour's quality contract approach, Mr Renilson stated:
[quote]"Such a contract would take control of the bus network and design of the services and timetables away from the people who run the buses."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 5 October 2004; c 1183.]
[bold]Mr Neil Renilson[/bold]
Chief executive of Lothian Buses,[/quote]
Bristow Muldoon, ex Labour MSP and ex manager at British Rail and then for GNER over a period of 13 years spoke on the matter when Labour were in power.
[quote]"In many areas, the de-regulated market has provided benefits in the form of increased frequency of service, reduced fares, better vehicles and improved infrastructure."
[bold]Bristow Muldoon[/bold]
Labour MSP 1999-2007
Local Government and Transport Committee[/quote]
I'll wait and see the details of Labour's Bill but given their latest tactics of putting forward Bills that are in complete contrast to what they did whilst in power simply for political effect will reveal more about labour than the SNP......
It appears that Labour now want to spend money that the Scottish Government doesn't have, yet they all voted for the TRAMS when it was the SNP's policy to use that money to widen transport links throughout Scotland....... horse....bolt....doo
r
Martin wrote:
Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?
Labour now & the Greens like to argue that because Lothian Buses is a council-owned company, its success is a reason for re-regulation.
Chief executive of Lothian Buses, Mr Neil Renilson, during the Local Government and Transport Committee's inquiry into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 passionately advocated against further regulation of our bus services, noting that Lothian Buses is wholly deregulated, which required local authorities to establish their municipal bus funds as ''arm's-length companies''
Speaking of Labour's quality contract approach, Mr Renilson stated:
"Such a contract would take control of the bus network and design of the services and timetables away from the people who run the buses."—
Mr Neil Renilson
Chief executive of Lothian Buses,
Bristow Muldoon, ex Labour MSP and ex manager at British Rail and then for GNER over a period of 13 years spoke on the matter when Labour were in power.
"In many areas, the de-regulated market has provided benefits in the form of increased frequency of service, reduced fares, better vehicles and improved infrastructure."
Bristow Muldoon
Labour MSP 1999-2007
Local Government and Transport Committee
I'll wait and see the details of Labour's Bill but given their latest tactics of putting forward Bills that are in complete contrast to what they did whilst in power simply for political effect will reveal more about labour than the SNP......
It appears that Labour now want to spend money that the Scottish Government doesn't have, yet they all voted for the TRAMS when it was the SNP's policy to use that money to widen transport links throughout Scotland....... horse....bolt....doo
r
Posted by: Al, Scotland on 11:20am Sun 29 Jun 08
Do what I do, drive. Problem sorted.
Seriously, labour are scum. They had 8 years to do this and chose not to. They chose not to do a lot of things while in power.
Do what I do, drive. Problem sorted.
Seriously, labour are scum. They had 8 years to do this and chose not to. They chose not to do a lot of things while in power.
Posted by: Greg, aberdeen on 12:27pm Sun 29 Jun 08
Nationalised Express - a canny wait!
Nationalised Express - a canny wait!
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 12:41pm Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote]If bus travellers today were asked what they want from their bus services, not many would come up with "effective implementation of regulatory arrangements".[/quote]
Actually on this occasion I have to disagree with you Wardog. I think most bus users ( I am one ) would say that there is an urgent necessity to regulate bus services. There are far too many buses on the roads, serving far too few routes. Yes Labour should have sorted this out, but they didn't, so now it is the responsibility of the SNP. Charlie Gordon has very few talents in my view, but the one talent he has got relates to the provision of public transport. His ideas are usually sound.
I don't think it matters to Joe and Josephine bus user where this idea comes from, it's a good idea, and it should be implemented. If it goes against Brian Soutar's interests that is actually an advantage for the SNP, because that will take away the foundation of the criticisms that they are in his pocket.
Because they are not. Right ?
If bus travellers today were asked what they want from their bus services, not many would come up with "effective implementation of regulatory arrangements".
Actually on this occasion I have to disagree with you Wardog. I think most bus users ( I am one ) would say that there is an urgent necessity to regulate bus services. There are far too many buses on the roads, serving far too few routes. Yes Labour should have sorted this out, but they didn't, so now it is the responsibility of the SNP. Charlie Gordon has very few talents in my view, but the one talent he has got relates to the provision of public transport. His ideas are usually sound.
I don't think it matters to Joe and Josephine bus user where this idea comes from, it's a good idea, and it should be implemented. If it goes against Brian Soutar's interests that is actually an advantage for the SNP, because that will take away the foundation of the criticisms that they are in his pocket.
Because they are not. Right ?
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 1:51pm Sun 29 Jun 08
Observer, Glasgow on 12:41pm today
Hi Observer
I guess it willl all come down to what exactly in in Labour's BIll, I smell a rat simple because many of the issues that require review do not require a bill, an amendment would easily deal with widening access the disabled, restructuring the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused, looking afresh at the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant and reviewing the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as time-tabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport.
The key issue with Charlie's Bill is bus workers rights, it's a union Trojan horse which is not in the interest of the bus user, you will recall the strikes not so long ago in Edinburgh which caused havoc .
"...The beefed-up quality contracts would also contain safeguards for workers' terms and conditions...."
This is the real motive, it has little to do with changing bus operation timetables and serving far flung areas....
All of that could be undertaken by amendment, a new bill is being proposed to try and lever union demands into our transport system/m.
Not at the expense of efficient services please, I am a regular user of both trains and buses and would hate to return to the 70's when a bus might not be available for a few weeks due to strikes....
Observer, Glasgow on 12:41pm today
Hi Observer
I guess it willl all come down to what exactly in in Labour's BIll, I smell a rat simple because many of the issues that require review do not require a bill, an amendment would easily deal with widening access the disabled, restructuring the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused, looking afresh at the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant and reviewing the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as time-tabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport.
The key issue with Charlie's Bill is bus workers rights, it's a union Trojan horse which is not in the interest of the bus user, you will recall the strikes not so long ago in Edinburgh which caused havoc .
"...The beefed-up quality contracts would also contain safeguards for workers' terms and conditions...."
This is the real motive, it has little to do with changing bus operation timetables and serving far flung areas....
All of that could be undertaken by amendment, a new bill is being proposed to try and lever union demands into our transport system/m.
Not at the expense of efficient services please, I am a regular user of both trains and buses and would hate to return to the 70's when a bus might not be available for a few weeks due to strikes....
Posted by: Morag, Peeblesshire on 2:01pm Sun 29 Jun 08
Agreed, Observer.
Brian Souter has been an SNP donor for many years. Way long before there was any rational hope of them being in a position to set policy, and therefore way long before it was reasonable to expect any favours in return for the donations. Funnily enough, I thought he was giving the money for the same reason that I give money to the SNP. Because I believe that an independent Scotland is the best political future for my country.
If Mr. Souter chooses to curtail his donations now that the SNP is in power, on the grounds that they have supported a policy which was not to his advantage, then I would think the less of him for that. I don't approve of SNP policy on GM foods or organic farming, but I wouldn't dream of making any donations contingent on these policies being reversed. (I still reserve the right to argue against them both within and outside the party of course, and no doubt Mr. Soutar takes a similar view.)
Mr. Souter is a major donor, of that there is no doubt. But there are others. The SNP does not rely on him for its existence. It is also very well aware of the perils of getting to far into bed with any donor, and the subsequent accusations of bias and favours.
If this proposed bill is any good, and like Wardog I remain to be convinced, I hope the SNP will support if.
Agreed, Observer.
Brian Souter has been an SNP donor for many years. Way long before there was any rational hope of them being in a position to set policy, and therefore way long before it was reasonable to expect any favours in return for the donations. Funnily enough, I thought he was giving the money for the same reason that I give money to the SNP. Because I believe that an independent Scotland is the best political future for my country.
If Mr. Souter chooses to curtail his donations now that the SNP is in power, on the grounds that they have supported a policy which was not to his advantage, then I would think the less of him for that. I don't approve of SNP policy on GM foods or organic farming, but I wouldn't dream of making any donations contingent on these policies being reversed. (I still reserve the right to argue against them both within and outside the party of course, and no doubt Mr. Soutar takes a similar view.)
Mr. Souter is a major donor, of that there is no doubt. But there are others. The SNP does not rely on him for its existence. It is also very well aware of the perils of getting to far into bed with any donor, and the subsequent accusations of bias and favours.
If this proposed bill is any good, and like Wardog I remain to be convinced, I hope the SNP will support if.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 3:18pm Sun 29 Jun 08
I agree Wardog that the devil is in the detail. But however bus regulation works out it is, by definition, going to be uncomfortable for Mr Soutar as he is a fairly ruthless businessman. I am in favour of trade union rights so that aspect of it pleases me rather than concerns me.
Morag, yes Mr Soutar donated money to the SNP long before they came into Government. But he is in many eyes an unfortunate bedfellow. Including mine. I think it is entirely coincidental, but possibly advantageous that it can be demonstrated clearly that his status as a donor and supporter of independence will not influence decisions which may affect his business.
I agree Wardog that the devil is in the detail. But however bus regulation works out it is, by definition, going to be uncomfortable for Mr Soutar as he is a fairly ruthless businessman. I am in favour of trade union rights so that aspect of it pleases me rather than concerns me.
Morag, yes Mr Soutar donated money to the SNP long before they came into Government. But he is in many eyes an unfortunate bedfellow. Including mine. I think it is entirely coincidental, but possibly advantageous that it can be demonstrated clearly that his status as a donor and supporter of independence will not influence decisions which may affect his business.
Posted by: phil1, Edinburgh on 5:53pm Sun 29 Jun 08
If Stagecoach owner and SNP donor Brian Souteris against it then it must benefit the ordinary people .
I guess though the SNP will not want to upset their main financial backer.
If Stagecoach owner and SNP donor Brian Souteris against it then it must benefit the ordinary people .
I guess though the SNP will not want to upset their main financial backer.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 6:22pm Sun 29 Jun 08
I think we should nationalize all public transportation and put Brian Souter in charge.
Further reading:
http://www.scotland.
gov.uk/Publications/
2007/11/13092240/8
http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/document/a
ctivities/cont/20080
2/20080214ATT21321/2
0080214ATT21321EN.pd
f
http://www.strc.ch/p
df_2006/Nash_STRC_20
06.pdf
http://www.mtq.gouv.
qc.ca/portal/page/po
rtal/Librairie/Publi
cations/en/transport
_collectif/transit_p
olicy_summary_06.pdf
http://www.metrolinx
.com/Client%20Docume
nts/1/10-Appendix_A_
Green_Paper_1.pdf
http://www.drben.net
/ChinaReport/Beijing
/Beijing-City_Public
_Transportation_Syst
em/Transport-in-Beij
ing-Menu.html
http://www.publictra
nsportation.org/repo
rts/asp/pub_benefits
.asp
http://www.civicwebs
.com/cwvlib/transpor
tation/mdpt/strategi
c_planning.htm
http://www.napta.net
/
http://www.apta.com/
research/info/online
/greenhouse_brochure
.cfm
http://www.transport
ation1.org/tif5repor
t/adding_capacity.ht
ml
I think we should nationalize all public transportation and put Brian Souter in charge.
Further reading:
http://www.scotland.
gov.uk/Publications/
2007/11/13092240/8
http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/document/a
ctivities/cont/20080
2/20080214ATT21321/2
0080214ATT21321EN.pd
f
http://www.strc.ch/p
df_2006/Nash_STRC_20
06.pdf
http://www.mtq.gouv.
qc.ca/portal/page/po
rtal/Librairie/Publi
cations/en/transport
_collectif/transit_p
olicy_summary_06.pdf
http://www.metrolinx
.com/Client%20Docume
nts/1/10-Appendix_A_
Green_Paper_1.pdf
http://www.drben.net
/ChinaReport/Beijing
/Beijing-City_Public
_Transportation_Syst
em/Transport-in-Beij
ing-Menu.html
http://www.publictra
nsportation.org/repo
rts/asp/pub_benefits
.asp
http://www.civicwebs
.com/cwvlib/transpor
tation/mdpt/strategi
c_planning.htm
http://www.napta.net
/
http://www.apta.com/
research/info/online
/greenhouse_brochure
.cfm
http://www.transport
ation1.org/tif5repor
t/adding_capacity.ht
ml
Posted by: JC on 8:42pm Sun 29 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Martin[/bold] wrote: Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?[/quote] It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to raise the issue when Labour at Westminster has presided over sky-high levels of fuel duty and is therefore at least partly responsible for the terrible state in which many bus operators find themselves. As a result of the massive increase in fuel costs, even since the budget, there is now a strong case for reviewing the entire scheme, with a view to making it much more effective rather than more restrictive. With regards to regulation, the voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an good service to passengers across Scotland; Stagecoach and First Group have had unparalleled global success, achieved in a de-regulated bus environment; Lothian Buses have been named the best bus company in the United Kingdom for 2007, this success has been achieved since the de-regulation of municipal bus companies under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 198. By all means these should be reviewed further, but it is not yet clear from the article above exactly how Charlie Gordon\'s bill would improve things for customers. Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous administration chose not to grant eligibility to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance when they created the National Concessionary Travel Scheme, this could also be reviewed in an effort to extend this programme. A review of the future levels of bus service operators grant, possibly restructuring the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused. The Scottish Government should review the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant in consultation with the industry A review of the Competition Commission\'s stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport A review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts that inhibit multi-modal travel would also be a good idea. Further regulation however is simply a union Trojan horse and not in the interest of the millions of bus customers in Scotland today. Hence Labour\'s excitement at introducing this whilst in opposition rather than when in Government. [/quote] Oh did you get that all from nat head office, lap dog?
Watch the nats squirm as they try to make up their minds between their manifesto (remeber that?) and the money.
Remember as a rule -always do the opposite to Brian Souter
Wardog wrote:
Martin wrote: Lothian Buses has drivers with average earnings above £25k - which is pretty good for the sector. The price of a single journey has also gone up between 40% ( for longer journeys) and 80% for shorter journeys over the last 5 years. I know compared to other cities Lothian appears to have a good service but as a regular user, it is not great - how it wins Best UK Bus company is beyond me - not a lot of competition?
It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to raise the issue when Labour at Westminster has presided over sky-high levels of fuel duty and is therefore at least partly responsible for the terrible state in which many bus operators find themselves. As a result of the massive increase in fuel costs, even since the budget, there is now a strong case for reviewing the entire scheme, with a view to making it much more effective rather than more restrictive. With regards to regulation, the voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an good service to passengers across Scotland; Stagecoach and First Group have had unparalleled global success, achieved in a de-regulated bus environment; Lothian Buses have been named the best bus company in the United Kingdom for 2007, this success has been achieved since the de-regulation of municipal bus companies under the provisions of the Transport (Scotland) Act 198. By all means these should be reviewed further, but it is not yet clear from the article above exactly how Charlie Gordon\'s bill would improve things for customers. Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous administration chose not to grant eligibility to people with learning disabilities and other disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of disability allowance when they created the National Concessionary Travel Scheme, this could also be reviewed in an effort to extend this programme. A review of the future levels of bus service operators grant, possibly restructuring the grant so that it becomes more environmentally focused. The Scottish Government should review the operation and funding of the Bus Service Operators Grant in consultation with the industry A review of the Competition Commission\'s stance on the level of communication that can occur between public transport operators on issues such as timetabling which would assist greater integration with other forms of public transport A review penalty clauses in rail and ferry contracts that inhibit multi-modal travel would also be a good idea. Further regulation however is simply a union Trojan horse and not in the interest of the millions of bus customers in Scotland today. Hence Labour\'s excitement at introducing this whilst in opposition rather than when in Government.
Oh did you get that all from nat head office, lap dog?
Watch the nats squirm as they try to make up their minds between their manifesto (remeber that?) and the money.
Remember as a rule -always do the opposite to Brian Souter
Posted by: JWil on 9:20pm Sun 29 Jun 08
How many of the councils actually want to take up these powers and who are they? Does he have the support of COSLA?
How many of the councils actually want to take up these powers and who are they? Does he have the support of COSLA?
Posted by: nostress, grangemouth on 11:10pm Sun 29 Jun 08
For Plobotsky & JC
Maybe you didn't manage to get to this bit in the article in your haste to attack the SNP Government:
An SNP spokesperson said: "We will study the details of his proposal in due course."
What's your problem? The Bill hasn't even been launched yet - Gordon, who represents Glasgow Cathcart, will launch his draft Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill when MSPs return from the recess in the autumn.
Or did you miss that bit too?
For Plobotsky & JC
Maybe you didn't manage to get to this bit in the article in your haste to attack the SNP Government:
An SNP spokesperson said: "We will study the details of his proposal in due course."
What's your problem? The Bill hasn't even been launched yet - Gordon, who represents Glasgow Cathcart, will launch his draft Bus Regulation (Scotland) Bill when MSPs return from the recess in the autumn.
Or did you miss that bit too?
Posted by: nostress, grangemouth on 11:12pm Sun 29 Jun 08
Annunurrahing....who
's to say Charlie boy will even be there in the autumn given his self-confessed part in Wendy's crime?
Annunurrahing....who
's to say Charlie boy will even be there in the autumn given his self-confessed part in Wendy's crime?
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 12:19pm Mon 30 Jun 08
A good thing done for the wrong reasons...?
Neither Labour nor the SNP seem to have had the courage to tackle this while in power (and isn't it reserved anyway?) but Wardog's statement that...
"the voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an good service to passengers across Scotland"...
... is a bit far-fetched. Bus services aren't great generally, and nor are the passenger numbers.
A good thing done for the wrong reasons...?
Neither Labour nor the SNP seem to have had the courage to tackle this while in power (and isn't it reserved anyway?) but Wardog's statement that...
"the voluntary partnerships between bus operators and local authorities are flourishing and delivering an good service to passengers across Scotland"...
... is a bit far-fetched. Bus services aren't great generally, and nor are the passenger numbers.
Comment | Read Comments (27)
Print this story
Email to a friend
