Save Our Buses!

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Welcome

Save our Buses! has the simple aim of helping to reverse the East Renfrewshire Council decision to axe the free bus service to 1100 of our Primary School pupils and replace it with a pay for service.
As many people as possible need to send letters, emails, phone and attend surgeries of the Councilors who made this decision.

Start by clicking here to email Council Leader Cllr James Fletcher.

posted by Andy Slater at 11:40 pm

64 Comments:

  • How can we publicise this website quickly and effectively? Any ideas?? I have sent the link to everyone on my address list and told everyone I know but feel I could be doing more

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 29/3/06 9:45 pm  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 29/3/06 11:18 pm  

  • On Behalf of CVR, apologies finger trouble from me (Blog Admin. This was the original email that stimulated the reply from Jim Fletcher.

    Subject: Reinstatement of free primary school bus transport

    Dear Mr Fletcher

    I am writing to you after attending the school bus transport meeting at St Ninians on Wednesday.

    It is a pity that you and the other elected members were unable to attend this meeting.

    Considering that the meeting had not been very well publicised and had also been organised at short notice, it was extremely well attended by very upset and concerned parents. Judging by the reactions of the people last night, this matter is not going to go away.

    The meeting however did start 10 minutes late, due to parking, and congestion, what a start!!!

    I have bulleted below all my points

    NO consultation or risk assessment done prior to the meeting on Feb 9th '06, and to this date no measurend assesment completed.
    It was also established that people are NOT willing to pay approximately £80 (2 children) which results in practice to a 30% rise in their council tax! - absolutely unaffordable.
    The elected members had no idea of the implications, knock-on effect or consequences of voting for such a motion.
    I have already detailed my complaints to Bill Elliot and received polite, but unsatisfactory, reply. (The first papagragh of the letter was read to all at the meeting with shock at the verbal over the isuue of 'Safe'.
    Local residents are not aware of the change and this will be communicated LATE in the Day through the ER magazine.
    There has been no provision for extra crossing, or wardens.
    No study to local enviromantal issues
    Glasgow and Renfrewsshire Councils are keeping the 1 mile service and not changing it.
    The £238,000 is a drop in the ocean to the whole education budget and (replaced text by Blog Admin) "suggestions" regarding loss of classromm services is RUDE.
    The Council at present I am told has a very large Reserve, some say £15 million, should we not use some to help our children travel to school in a SAFE mannor, and if needed in future years to properly assess the impact of such a change through a detailed assesment and consultation.
    I would like this letter and my previous letter to Bill Elliot as the strongest of complaints.

    I look forward to a positive response and I am appealing to reverse the decision taken on the grounds of SAFETY.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 4/4/06 9:11 pm  

  • On Behalf of (Lenon)

    As a first time house buyer considering a move to East Renfrewshire I am seriously discouraged by the recent cut in school buses reported on this Blog site. With a qualification in Economics I understand the basic financial argument that an over spending council has to get its money back from somewhere. I find it unbeleiveable however that once again the easiest target has been chosen - children who can't speak out for themselves. I find it hard to beleive that anyone who voted for this cut has chidren attending schools in East Renfrewshire. If they did - they surely would not have voted for such an unfair cut. I would seriously reccommend that the council publish the alternatives that were considered in this case. ( Blog admin text removed)

    I would now think twice about considering East Renfrewshire as one of the most attractive places to live to bring up children if the first target for financial cuts is going to be the children. Please do something about this unfair decision and save the buses. The consequences are far wider reaching than I beleive the councillors first thought.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 4/4/06 9:13 pm  

  • You might be interested to note that week beginning 27/03/06 the Council were still sending out the old application forms for school transport, which talk about "safe routes" to school and a one mile limit.

    Children enroling for school were not given transport application forms (as they were in the past. The nurseries are not giving out information about the change in provision, and are being told to refer all enquries to Bill Elliott.

    Will bus applications be down next year because only those in the know fill in the forms?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/4/06 11:38 am  

  • Maybe you should start by questioning the financial constraints that led to very difficult decisions being made.

    The Scottish Executive fund the Council to the tune of£300 per head less when compared with neighbouring councils.

    Don't complain about Jim Fletcher or the other hardworking administration Councillors. Complain about Tom McCabe and the monstrous treatment of our authority.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/4/06 9:32 pm  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 8/4/06 12:53 pm  

  • On Behalf of anonymous

    Interesting Shannon! So you don't think the £300 funding discrepancy should be addressed in any way? This is some £20M for the Council.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 9/4/06 4:58 pm  

  • Interesting anonymous!!!! So the council has done nothing to address this discrepancy, except pass the burden on to the tax payer, that’s not really competent of them is it? However let me point out that this is about the flawed decision to withdraw school buses, not about the competence of the council. Are you a councilor or a council employee? I think if you have an agenda we deserve to know, If you are a councilor I think we should know how brave and principled or councilors are!!! If you are council employee using a council computer to indulge your political opinion then we also most definitely need to know? This decision to withdraw services, at the same time as increasing the council tax is a poor attempt to pick our pockets. The arguments provided by the council have all so far been of the Swiss cheese variety (full of holes ) perhaps you would like to mount a serious attempt to defend this decision as opposed to taking the council view so far (that is its someone else’s fault) or talking about anything else but the issue. As an aside I have just had a letter from Mhari Shaw which puts forward the preposterous idea of why should the vast majority of council tax payers pay for free school buses for a few kids. This displays Unbelievable lack of understanding of civics; from the acting director of education!!!!!!! I also notice that since the start of this web blog that all the answers have been in letter form , That must make it very difficult to transcribe onto this blog ,I do hope this isn’t a deliberate attempt to stifle any protest ;-)) Come on anonymous we have a fair idea of your identity , Admit it!!! Or are you actually ashamed to be taking this stance (we understand why that would be ;-))))))

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/4/06 3:10 pm  

  • Don't be so patronising, 'anonymous'. Of course this can be addressed, but just because a neighbouring council spends £300 per head more does not mean ERC have to. It's not a competition!
    However, there are many areas where spending spending could be cut without having such a dramatic effect on the WHOLE community.
    The fact is that this administration did not undertake any risk assessment or investigate the cost implications involved in reducing the bus provision. I walked my kids to school 2 weeks ago and did not feel safe crossing a main road near my house - I had to grab them both and tell them to run with me! In order to cross the road in question safely it would require a crossing patrol/pelican crossing (both of which would cost money). I'm quite sure there are several roads the same throughout East Renfrewshire - do the Council have a clue how much it would cost them to provide the necessary crossings?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/4/06 3:56 pm  

  • My identity is not important. I am simply making the point that East Renfrewshire is under-funded in comparison to neighbouring authorities. I think this is quite a simple point.

    The under-funding is £20M which could have been used to keep the school buses free and perhaps even extend other services across the authority. East Renfrewshire is an expanding area and I am sure that our Councillors will be lobbying the Scottish Executive for an increase in funds.

    Shannon, the Council is forced to spend £300 per head LESS than neighbouring authorities. From the Scottish Executive website:

    East Renfrewshire £1,485 per resident
    Glasgow £1,964 per resident
    Renfrewshire £1,605

    This difference in money explains the reasons for the cuts. This is what needs to be addressed. Attack Tom McCabe and not our Council!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/4/06 11:45 pm  

  • (On Behalf of Shannon)

    Dear me, anonymous, in your haste to defend your blinkered point of view, you have mis-interpreted my point entirely.
    Just because Glasgow spends £300 per head more than ERC does not mean ERC have to match that spending. How ridiculous! Glasgow has far more amenities to fund than East Renfrewshire. Is anonymous suggesting that every council in Scotland should be spending exactly the same amount of money per head regardless of amenity/service provision? I look forward to anonymous' comments as he/she continues to illustrate the (Blog admin text removed - replaced in quotes)"ill considered nature" of these cuts. It continues to allow me (and others) to highlight the common sense which should have been exercised when this decision was initially made.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 13/4/06 11:33 pm  

  • Shannon

    I am not saying that each Council spends more, what is happening is that each Council is allocated a different amount of money to fund all the services per head of population. Out of this money each local authority funds the same basic services.

    In this instance East Renfrewshire receives £300-£500 less than our neighbouring authorities. This surely necessitates cuts in service provision?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 14/4/06 8:58 am  

  • All, can I be so bold as make the point that it is not the fact that cuts have to be made rather that services to Primary School Children should not be targeted. Especially services that keep the children safe. A very poor lack of judgement and consideration by the Council.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 14/4/06 6:39 pm  

  • On Behalf of Shannon

    Re: anonymous' comment about the council & the financial contstraints they have to manage!! Boo hoo!!! (text removed) The hike in Council Tax has been utterly ridiculous.
    Don't talk to me about financial constraints - I'm dealing with them on a daily basis, trying to manage an already tight budget -and this 'poor' administration want me to cough up an extra £40 per month to get my children to school. (Text removed - Blog Admin) I can only assume that 'anonymous' has some kind of affinity with the council and that is why they choose to remain ANONYMOUS

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 23/4/06 3:28 pm  

  • From barrhead-scotland.com:

    I read with interest about the parent action group that connects to paying for transport to school (on the bus). As far as I am aware in a legal sense a council does NOT need to provide free transport to children from families that are not on benefits as per free school meals. Why should tax payer subsidise such transport for families who are NOT on benefits? Surely, parents who are NOT on benefits can afford the small cost? Surely, the money saved can be targeted at the poorer families/kids? As for the safety issue, why not take them to school like I do? You can do that by car or by walking. Will a small fee stop you putting your child on a bus? It would not stop me if I was NOT on benefits. Surely, we should be thinking about the poorer kids and the money saved can be directed at them? Linda

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 23/4/06 9:39 pm  

  • Paul from Barrhead: The roads our children are being asked to walk are not safe that is why the bus service should be retained. The bus is not currently a free service I pay for this in my Council Tax which is rising by 4.9%, the Council are also enjoying an increase in funding from Central Government of 2.8% why should I pay more for this service from the next school year, I am being punished for poor budget management by the Council.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 27/4/06 7:21 am  

  • My son is going on a school trip today and the letter home emphasised that the coach would have individual seatbelts for safety. I presume we can insist on seatbelts on School Transport if we are to pay. This may be an additional cost which the bus company will pass on to the Council, further reducing the questionable savings they are anticipating.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 27/4/06 7:27 am  

  • There is no reason any funds should be diverted away from the poor and needy .It is not a choice between child safety and the environment and non legally required programs to help poor kids, both are needed. I am a 28 year old single mother of four, I work to support my family and I can assure you My budget is every bit as tight as yours .I refuse to ask for handouts as I am a worker and don’t want my children stigmatized. I do not have the luxury of having time to walk my kids to school 45 mins each way twice a day as you do. Especially as I have a disabled child. I pay a HUGE council tax and have to work to pay it. This council has a duty of care regarding safety( in a legal, moral and ethical sense ), but are deliberately putting the workers and taxpayers children in harms way whilst benefits claimants children still get the bus free at the old limit. This is not the same as free meals!!!! My kids could be killed !!!! .This small fee for me would be as high as 100 pounds a month. Kids of parents on Benefits get the bus free( with no legal obligation to do so) and you have the time to walk to school (I am not saying your kids shouldn’t be on the bus only the people who actually pay through council/income tax a should also be on at the same limits) The problem with everyone driving the car to school is it will cost more than the council is saving in crossing patrols/accidents and police controlling increased traffic. (Blog admin text removed). It is very easy to attack me as a working mum on the school run I am an easy target, It’s about time we had some resources. All the money that is required to be directed at poor people is, however it does not mean that the working people should receive no services from a council they fund.(Blog admin text removed) - Sally

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 29/4/06 12:43 pm  

  • dear anonymous (Blog admin - Text Removed) do you really expect the people of this area to believe your only option was to remove services from the kids? you could start by stopping the costly production of the standards junk mail we all recieved last week. This labour controlled authority has just moved to the right of thatcher with this policy .If you had the courage of your convictoins then you wouldn't hide behind the anonymous tag,but the truth is you dont . the main stated aim of the council roads dept.is to reduce traffic in the school run but the education dept seem to want to increase traffic with this policy, Could it be that the councils left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, Leaving it accused of hypocrisy (Blog admin - Text removed)

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 29/4/06 12:47 pm  

  • The issue is quite simple. It is a parent's responsibility to get their child to school NOT the local authority. When funds were available ERC provide free buses to children who had no legal entitelemnt to such provision. Not that funds are tight they are asking parents to fund this transport. Seems sensible to me.

    There is NO withdrawl of bus servcies and there is scaremongering going on by organisations such as this - the word axe and bus are in bold to place emphasis on this - the word free is not, aimed at presenting a false picture.

    Yet again middle class parents want soemthing for free. Stop whinging and accept that it is YOUR responsibility to get your children to school, not ERC and not other council tax payers. This is NOT an increase in counciil tax - all you are being asked to do is accept that it is your responsibility to get your child to school. If you choose to let them walk or go by car, then any danger that this poses - if it does and I doubt this - then it is you who have brought this upon your child.

    Get real

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/5/06 11:41 am  

  • Oh Dear,
    Someone who doesn't care about childrens' safety. How depressing.There is no scaremongering here only the truth and the last post shows how much the opinion of tax paying voters matters seems to count to some.Isn't it strange that those taking a stance supporting the free bus service cut feel they can't identify themselves. If you have nothing to hide then don't hide it.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 1/5/06 11:47 am  

  • One's argument becomes weaker when putting words that were never said into someone else's mouth. Nothing I said could ever be construed as not being concerned about child saefty. But, it is not ERC's responsibility to get your child to school safely - it is yours and yours alone. For years you have abdicated this responsibility to ERC - it, due to tight funds, is asking you to take it back. Pay the modest £1 fare per journey and then there will be no increase in traffic and the compromised safety that you fear will result from ERC decision will not be realised. Its really that simple. Any increased risk to safety will be down to parents and not ERC.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/5/06 12:34 pm  

  • So you have weakened your own argument then anonymous since you assert that this site is scare mongering when it is plainly not. Your lack of eloquence also says a lot about your attitude 'Get Real' is not a very informed view.
    I hope you also note that not all parents in East Renfrewshire are 'Middle Class' and rely on the free bus provision and cannot afford £20 per month per child. Hardly modest in anyone's terms. They have been given no other choice. Are we to assume that on top of attempting to misrepresent the views of this web site you are also unaware of the make up residents in East Renfrewshire? Maybe you should do some homework and also read some of the articles on the site explaining that we are all well aware of the responsibilities of parents. From your attitude I am guessing that you are not a parent.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 1/5/06 1:23 pm  

  • Mr Slater, I am a parent and have always accepted that it is my responsibility to get my child to school and have never sought to put that responsibility onto others.

    I am confused though - some say £20-£30 per week, you say £20 per month. £20 per month, or even per week is modest when we are talking about child safety. I am well aware of the socio-economic profile of the ERC area.

    Come August nothing much will have changed - your child can still walk out of your house and catch a bus to school. The only difference is that you will pay the cost of this rather than expecting the other council tax payers to part fund your child's transport to school - seems very fair to me.

    My undertsanding is that ERC will be marketing the pay bus service hoping to encourage those parents who drive their children to school to use the buses - this will make a significant impact on child safety as the "school run" is recognised by many (including the police) as a danger to children. But if the parents decide not to then it is they not ERC who will be responsible if child safety is compromised.

    The issue really comes down to you wanting others to pay for something that is your responsibility. For years you have had this free, now you have to pay. Its called the real world.

    If ERC needed to make cuts, then it is only right and proper that these cuts should be made against services that they have no statutory obligation to provide, and where the responsibility rests with others.

    This issue is all about responsibilities. You say you are aware of your responsibilities - well exercise them and don't try to abdicate them to ERC.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/5/06 2:14 pm  

  • I am a parent whose child at the moment gets the "free" school bus.
    The council originally sent parents a letter stating they were getting rid of the school buses altogether, with the exception of those children whose received free school meals and uniforms. No risk assessment was done and it was only through parents complaining that this decision was overturned and the capping of fees was first suggested. We pay for the school bus through our council tax, and we will pay the hike in council tax, why should we pay twice for the bus. Did anyone receive the standards and quality report. How much did that cost to produce. does anyone read the ERC magazine ? parents are angry because of the way this has been handled and the manner in which we have been treated. an extra £20 a month per child is a big deal to many parents.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/5/06 6:59 pm  

  • Anonymous unfortunately I cannot address you as you hide your identity for some reason (that seems to be you have something to hide).
    You seem to be putting words into our mouths by suggesting that we are passing responsibilities onto the Council. This is simply not the case and is an obtuse point of view. We all know that sometimes cuts are unavoidable. But we all pay Council tax and pay for all our services. This is not the issue. The issue is that the Council are cutting services (statutory or not - again irrelevant) that are essential to many primary school children and parents. This is not the area to be cutting. There are many other areas that could be cut instead given the safety implications, which I can assure you are very real. As for the Police that you mention, read the article under the first welcome article showing that they are not particulary enthusiastic about the decision. As for wanting others to pay for my services it seems you have a very weak grasp of democracy. We pay tax and get services. We being all of East Renfrewshire. Are you somehow outwith this ideal to think that some people get special treatment that do not deserve it?You would do well to stop patronising and start listening to the people(even the 'Middle Class' ones), Council tax payers, voters and most important of all parents.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 1/5/06 7:30 pm  

  • You say"
    this will make a significant impact on child safety as the "school run" is recognised by many (including the police) as a danger to children"so you accept the councils policy change will cause people to have to make a decision which will increase danger to children .Some of your other comments are " hurtful and "bileous " why does this council shy away from providing services to those who have paid for them .Some councilors have been whining about this website ,but are without the guts to come on here and express their veiws ,unless they are hiding behind the anonymous tag.If you were a councilor with those views then the voters of the area would have a right to know in what regard we are held. and by the way the class war ended when labour councils started charging kids to go to school.So get out of the pulpit it smacks of hypocrisy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/5/06 9:31 pm  

  • Anonymous -Its the councils job ( thier only job) to provide services for the council tax payers ,the money does not stop being ours when we pay it to the council to dispense on our behalf. The only reason we give this money is to recieve services. Any other agenda (anti whatever they see as middle class )they can pay for themselves. I am working class I worked hard for the oportunity to live in a good area and I continue to work hard ,I will not have my pockets picked by a council with an agenda.I like many parents sweat for my wage . so dont imagine we can move this debate onto a middle class working class thing. Its about the council removing services and then having the bare faced cheek to up the council tax by 4.9%

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/5/06 9:50 pm  

  • I take a laissez faire attitude to council provision of services - they should provide only what they are statutory required to do so. That then leaves a gap for the private or voluntary sector - and would reduce the council tax. The provision of school buses to primary school children who live less than 2 miles from the school is a service that they should not be providing. That they are providing the buses and asking parents to pay a miserly £1 per day is more than what they should be doing, but I don't object to that.

    It is up to parents to get their children to school not the local authority. Your campaign will fail as it should.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/5/06 7:37 am  

  • On behalf of Shannon

    (Blog admin text removed). Anonymous, can you not grasp the essence of the objection to this 'pay-bus' fiasco? It would appear not! The Council did NOT do any risk assessments, traffic or environmental impact studies or consult with the Police before this decision was made. Normal practice dictates that a decision which has the potential to impact a WHOLE community would involve some degree of investigation. And I do mean a whole community - whether you have children or not, this decision sets a precident. This gives this Council carte blanche to cut important services (no matter what they are)whenever they like, with no prior consultation or research into the potential impact their cuts will have on ER residents.

    (Blog admin text removed). I have spoken to many people who are not 'directly' affected by this reduction but are as equally outraged as the parents of children who WILL be affected.
    As an aside, the bus provision as it stands was set in 1980 and looked at again c.1994. Not exactly current! Would it not be prudent of our Council to take the lead in exceeding this statutory level of provision, to accomodate the ever rising population & increase in traffic in ER? Or would that demonstrate too much common sense? - Shannon

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 2/5/06 9:06 am  

  • We cannot have some more essential services subject to laissez faire attitude and then still have cycle lanes,glossy brochures,hanging baskets and help for the children of benefits claimants to access school bus services(none of which are legal requirements).(Blog admin text removed).It is impossible to buy a one pound journey ,the minimum is one month whether you use the bus once or fifty times ,not a very laissez faire attitude you'll agree,If the costs are miserly why do the council feel the need to recoup such a miserly amount.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/5/06 3:56 pm  

  • Anonymous fails to grasp the point that no contract with any bus company is in place to provide the paid bus service this is only a very weak proposal. It is the parents responsibility to get their children to school but it is the Council's rsponsibility to provide a safe route to and from the school. Anonymous is welcome to walk my children's proposed safe route with me to see if he/she thinks that this is a safe route, I am also far from middle class, this decision is about poor budget control and nothing else, the Council has had an increase in its budget from last year above the rate of inflation, can he explain why there is a need for any cuts.

    Regards

    Paul McKelvie from Barrhead

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/5/06 4:22 pm  

  • Dear Anonymous - You seem to be of the opinion that people should not have to pay for services they do not use - I have never used the fire service. As I have been paying to fund this service over the last 10 years, can I please have a refund? Come to think of it I have been fortunate enough not to have needed the services of the social work department in any respect over that period either, should I object to paying that portion of the Council tax too? Should people with no children be given a rebate for not using the education service? NO?
    Why not? Is it because as members of society we all put money into the 'pot' and are then able to use the services as and when required? Ahh, I've got it now!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/5/06 7:59 pm  

  • On Behalf of Frank

    I am a socialist of long standing ,I was in the UCS work in.My father fought in spain in the thirties. I am seriously disheartend that a so called socialist party would have any part in this cowardly attack on (Blog admin text changed)children's services. The labour party has been (Blog admin text removed) ,The pseudo intellectual posturing of the (Blog admin text changed) "Council supporters" on this web page disgusts me. These hero's are harassing some we lassie's trying to get her weans to school on time. New labour - My (Blog admin text removed)

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 3/5/06 11:34 am  

  • People on this site have a unique knack for making big assumptions about others who post based on no evidence but their own blinkered view.

    I do not believe that people should not pay for services that they do not use - as an economist I am very much aware of the externality market failure rationale for public sector intervention. But that does not hold re school buses, it does hold re fire service. I believe that local authorities should provide the services that they are required to do by statute - and the other things they do should be left to the private and voluntary services. This would then reduce the council tax for us all.

    My understanding is that ERC didn't need to do a risk assessment as they were still providing the bus service, and therefore no risk attached. It is the parents who choose not to use the service who need to do the risk assessment, as it is they who may be increasing the risk to their child for the sake of £1 per day.

    At a meeting I attended recently at which education officials and an elected member was present it was made clear by them that the buses would run in August. Your campaign is doomed to failure.

    Much as I enjoy debate I have better things to do so will sign off.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/5/06 2:51 pm  

  • As an economist how do you reconcile this rise in council tax with cuts in service ,hardly a laissez faire attitude(we pay the same amount but dont recieve the service? the market doesn't work that way only in a monopoly like a council ) , Your arguement is bogus ,soley constructed to meet your point of view.If you are unsure where we are getting our idea's of what you propose,then I suggest you re read your posting.The council does have a duty under law to consider the safety of children when making decisions regarding child safety ,they have not ,have they? So your understanding is based on a false premise.I fail to see why your arguement stands for school buses and falls for the fire service .(The two services are not the same however your arguement fails to provide that distinction,the same arguement applies equally to both ,as it applies to glossy brochures and hanging baskets.The fact is the council has built huge primary schools with large catchment areas ,this is a saving in building and administration, But does require logistical management of school transport (and the safety implications),The council cant have its cake and eat it too.I am sure you do have very many much better things to do! so good luck with the embroidary ;-))I hope your a better sower than an economist. ? hd u ? We are all DOOMED, DOOMED you hear!!!!? hd u ?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/5/06 3:29 pm  

  • I was wrong about,laissez faire ,Give the children the bus for free.

    Adam Smith (author-The Wealth of Nations )

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4/5/06 10:06 am  

  • The stage has now been reached that I beleive we should protest not just at the Council meetings but also at Jim Murphy and Ken MacIntosh's surgeries and all Labour Party meetings.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/5/06 1:09 pm  

  • In reply to Linda (barrhead-scotland.com) & others of a similar mind. She says "Why should tax payer subsidise such transport for families who are NOT on benefits?" - Not being on benefits doesn't mean that we haven't already shoe-horned our budget to make ends meet and avoid running up debts. Someone else mentioned 4-bedroom-house owners, as if that was a magic way to find an extra £400. Not everybody has a big house, and those who have , also have a big mortgage. Finally, the argument about why should people without Primary School kids pay for their School Transport. Well, why should any of us pay Council Tax for any services which we do not use? If that's the case, then I don't want to pay for a number of services, and I would appreciate an itemised Order Form from the Council before paying my next instalment!
    OK, really finally, this year we are paying MORE Council Tax and getting LESS service. Tell me how that is a good thing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11/5/06 1:11 pm  

  • I find it very odd that parents who supposedly are seeking free buses on a child safety argument should put their children in danger during a protest at council HQ. The photograph in last night's Extra show how dangerous their actions were.

    So its not really about safety its about cost. Those suggesting that they will use their cars rather than the pay bus obviously have more money than sense - the costs associated with transporting their child in the car will far outweigh the modest £0.80 to £1 per day being proposed.

    Your true colours were revealed in a black and white photograph in the Extra

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/5/06 9:04 am  

  • Own goal certainly describes the reaction of the Council to a peaceful protest by parents and children.

    If the zebra crossing outside the Council Offices is dangerous then perhaps the Council should improve road safety in their own back yard. (In case anyone has forgotten people have right of way on a Zebra crossing NOT cars as some people seem to think - see highway code 170 and 171 in case you have forgotten at http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/18.htm)

    As the groundswell of support grows for our campaign it clearly shows safety of children is an immediate demand of the residents of East Renfrewshire.

    This campaign does not support repugnant and misleading public rhetoric but promotes listening and contructive engagement.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 12/5/06 9:30 am  

  • I am interested in this viewpoint that parents who are not on benefits should be expected to pay for their children's school buses. We could take this to many levels. Should non-benefit receivers also pay for their children's dental charges, GP visits, schooling itself!??
    There is simply no argument here.
    We, as a society, should look after all of our children.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/5/06 9:58 am  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/5/06 2:13 pm  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/5/06 10:01 pm  

  • To Linda
    Yes, that is the way it will go if we accept this change. Next time the Education budget gets tight, they may ask us to pay for school materials, after that possibly part of the teachers salaries. In the end we will be expected to pay for it all. The principal can then be applied to other areas and all those you mentioned are up for grabs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16/5/06 5:58 am  

  • Reply to "Own Goal"
    Have another look at the photos. They are on a "Zebra Crossing"!
    How many times do we have to repeat this.

    Where does the 80p option come in?
    Do you have access to future Council proposals which we don't know about?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16/5/06 6:08 am  

  • I know they are on a zebra crossing - but blocking a zebra crossing is a dangerous activity. A Slater quoted the highway code at someone - I think the HC suggests that you use these facilities to cross not block a road.

    At a meeting I was at a council official did mention that the cost could be as low as 80p per day. Given petrol prices at 95p+ per litre and inland revenue suggesting that it costs 40p per mile to run a car (although of course it is much higher now as this was calcualted a few years ago when petrol was about half what it is today) those who use their car rather than the pay bus will be spending more money, risking child safety, purely to make a political statement. Cost and safety considerations would suggest that the pay bus is the more sensible and responsiible option. So why not use it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 16/5/06 9:51 am  

  • Replying to Own Goal,

    The HC specifically mentions that you should not harass people while crossing by revving engines or any other such behaviour - highly relevant, maybe you should read it some time.

    People were crossing the road using the zebra crossing and hence had right of way. The fact that there were a lot of people does not make any difference to the HC.

    I think a clarification is needed about safety here. This site is not promoting the use of cars to get kids to school - there are all the associated safety concerns with this. We point out that the innevitable knock on effect of this cut is that many more people will use their cars.

    Your economic argument is flawed I am afraid. While I agree with your figures for one child most people car pool and take up to 4 children in one car. Even with only 2 children in one car the cost for me would be 2.8miles x 40p per mile x 5 days per week = £22.40 per month. 2 children using the new pay bus would be £40 per month - double the price.

    I agree that the bus is the safest and most responsible choice. This choice is being taken away by the Council for many parents. No other options have been put in it's place apart from an expensive pay for service.

    Many more people would use the pay bus service if it was very much cheaper. Is there no more grant available from the Council or Executive? Could the Council not put pressure on the Executive for more subsidy money or find money from other budgets? This would enable more people who cannot afford this pay bus service to use it and avoid the saftey problems that are created for the children.

    The Council argued (page 29) last year to the Education Comittee that changing eligible radius to statutory was not an option on grounds of safety. We support that view yet this cut flys in the face of this. Hence the safety argument and protests.

    Strangely appropriate to your name.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 16/5/06 11:02 am  

  • At first the ignore you.

    Then they laugh at you.

    then they fight you.

    then you win.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 22/5/06 10:45 am  

  • On Behalf of Anonymous

    Children from Mearns Primary were sent home, today, with another "sign up for the school bus" form. This is the third,in various forms, they have been given. I suspect the number returned to the council to date, necessitates further circulations to be sent, to up the numbers for this ill conceived plan.
    The paper this time is glossy, covered in logos and encourages us to pay £190 per year per child for transport to school.
    Incidentally, I can't understand why people on benefits get the bus free. According to the council nobody is entitled to that as they point out it's the parents responsibility to get their children to school. If you live within the 2 mile limit why should you get free transport ?

    The alternative is to walk like those who don't get benefits and can't afford the bus.
    Great news though if you have more than 3 kids using the bus. The fourth ones free. Brilliant, isn't it, your 4.9% council tax rise plus cut in school tranport service means your only £570 out of pocket per year.
    Who(Blog Admin - Text Removed) keeps going on about why should council tax payers pay for transporting other peoples children to school.
    Please grow up and act your shoe size ! I have not used the fire service, police service, social work service and numerous other services provided by local and national government. I don't think it would a good idea if we all stopped paying for services that others benefit from though.

    (Blog Admin - text removed)

    (Blog Admin - text changed) Anonymous refers to us as the middle class. I didn't know the middle class still existed. I thought there was only the haves and the have nots. It appears (Blog Admin - Text changed) Anonymous wishes us to become one of the have nots! Is it possible (Blog Admin - text changed) Anonymous is (Blog Admin - text changed) affilliated to the Council?

    Ah well, I could go on but the medication needs topped up,

    Cheeri.

    (Blog Admin - text removed)

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 22/5/06 11:13 am  

  • There seems to be some misunderstanding by many who post re paying for some services and not for others. Paying to transport your child to school is not the same as paying for fire service, social work etc.

    Your child's transport to school is a personal responsibility as has been recognised on this site. Social work, education fire etc are public goods - their provision needs to be established by a public sector body as no single individual could afford to pay for them - and if they did others would still use the service without paying - its called, in the jargon, externalities. We all pay for the common good. It also generates economies of scale – for example the amount of Council tax that you pay would be insufficient to fund, on an individual basis, the education of your child. Check out the price of private education to see this.

    For some to suggest that parents will soon be asked to pay for equipment, teachers salaries etc is nonsense. ERC are required by statute to provide these services – they are not required by statute to provide a free bus service for children who live within a certain distance from their school. That they have done so for many years is no justification for them doing so in perpetuity. Finances are tight. So is reasonable to withdraw services that they have no legal responsibility to provide. A 4.9% increase in council tax is enough – don’t want it increased any further to pay for these buses. Those who claim they are paying for this service twice are wrong as has been taken out of the budget, so not paying for this through Council tax.

    Don’t know where this issue of middle class vs working class comes from. I adopt Marx’s view on class – if the only factor of production that you posses is your labour then you are working class, whateevr your income or perceived social status.

    £190 per year per child seems a very reasonable charge to have a child transported to and back from school safely.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 23/5/06 11:20 am  

  • Time to move on/anonymous/own goal - The council may have no LEGAL responsibilty to provide free school transport but they do have a MORAL responsibility. The facts are it will cost me (and most others) far less to drive my children to school than £190 per child per year (as I would car pool with another parent) so it would defy logic for me to use the pay and go system! This decision will result in many more cars on the road, whichever way you look at it, and that is going to impact the WHOLE community - traffic congestion, environmental impact etc. The council need to take the lead in improving on the outdated minimum statutory provision.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 23/5/06 2:47 pm  

  • to Sharon

    local authorities have no moral obligations to do anything - they are not custodians of an any moral code, and if they were to be whose moral code would they follow, as each individual has their own moral code. Their only responsibility is to provide services that by statute they are required to deliver. Council tax rates are so high because they decide to do much much more. In my view they should do only that which statute requires - the gap would then be filled by either the private or voluntary sector, which I believe would lead to better and more efficient provision and delivered at lower costs.

    The responsibility to deliver children to school safely falls to parents and only parents.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24/5/06 10:49 am  

  • To Adam Smith (revised)

    Adam Smith was a genius - I think you still have a long way to go. Its quite clear that moral codes do not figure highly in your thinking. Mr. Smith on the other hand understood morals deeply.

    Our Council has provided this service for many years and is now axing it. I think we all understand that fact. We also all know that it is not a statutory requirement - ad nauseum. Your arguments are going around in circles.

    Simply put we pay tax, it has gone up, our services have been cut (so a double whammy). People are therfore not happy especially because the cut is affecting the safety of our children. The Council have identified this themselves (read the article on the web site about the letter to the Exec).

    I don't see ANY morals interfering with economics here. Don't worry no-one is confused.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 24/5/06 12:21 pm  

  • Time to move on- .The situation is this we want the same services we had last year for the same price we had last year (plus a small inflation increase).If you look back over the previous posts you will see why some of the positions have been taken quote"Yet again middle class parents want something for free. ".There is a suppostition from the council that most parents are midddle class can afford this so just pay up .Its not that simple why should people just pay every time the council come and put their hands in our pockets. we cannot expect cuts in service without cuts in the taxing that funds them .We all use the buses and to fund this the council negotiates on our behalf and we gain from the economies of scale.Then the council removes the service and keeps takng the money anyway and then increases the charges.And then continues to give services that they are not legally obliged to, to whoever the council fancies.The council does continue to fund glossy brochures,cycle lanes and hanging baskets,none of which are statutory requirements,

    The council has provided no time for consultation so it is impossible to do anything else but protest,we have only begun to protest ,its time for the council to hear our voice and stop this policy being implemented.The cost of private education is high but then so are the results, and can you imagine one of these schools telling parents "we are increasing the fee's by 4.9% and we are charging you a further 700 pounds for services that were included in the fees last year!!

    the councils education dept representative wrote to the scottish executive and stated that the policy of charging for the school bu would increase risk to the children increase traffic on the road increase pollution,and would decrease bus use .The council knows the risk's and is quite prepared to take risks with childrens lives but not to go back to the executive and demand a larger settlement, it is easy to see why people become irrate. I also believe Marx was a very astute thinker ,I preferd the one with the horn! who knew he knew so much about politics!!!! there aint no sanity clause (not at ERC anyway )

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24/5/06 1:04 pm  

  • Your not really Adam Smith are you?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24/5/06 2:40 pm  

  • OnBehalf of Gerry O'Hara

    It is the Local Authorities obligation to provide safe routes to school.
    If a particular route is in question, which many are, it is the responsibility of the council in conjuction with the transport dept and the police to assess these routes.This has been asked for but has never been done properly.
    Untill a full risk assessment has been carried out no child should be asked to walk to school untill potential dangers have been eleviated.
    I think we could argue all day regarding political aspects of the councils decision to withdraw the buses but no one including our friend "anonymous" who everyone knows the identity of now can seriuosly put up a defence when it comes to the safety of our children.What the councillors need to realise is that they were voted to work for their constituants and by ignoring their calls for a reversal or even to engage in serious dialogue regarding this outragous decision which compromises our childrens wellbeing is that they are alienating themseves from not only the voting public just now but a future electorate who will not forget what this labour elected council has done with the backing of the Liberals and not forgetting the two Conservatives who so quickly jumped ship in their stance over this.
    It is time for the councillors to forget about (Blog Admin- text removed) lists and spin and listen to the Mothers, Fathers and Carers who genuinely want what is best for their children.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 24/5/06 5:33 pm  

  • If we just look at providing services that are the council's legal responsibility then there should be no free service for anybody, benefit claiment or not. Why should I have to pay via my council tax for someone elses child standing next to my son or daughter at the bus stop then pay again? There is always the possibility that all the users of the bus service could be on benefits but the service will still need to be provided, sorry is it only me that cannot see where the council will save money here? Last but not least, I did find it interesting that of all the Wards in ER, Eaglesham PS and St Joseph's PS free bus service has been continued on the grounds of safety, obviously being slightly more rural it would be too much to ask those parents to take their children to school albeit I will have to finance that out of my council tax payments. Not that I mind that as I have the interests of those children at heart, maybe I didn't shout loudest.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/7/06 9:39 am  

  • This seems like a great use of blogger to deal with community issues.

    By Blogger High Power Rocketry, at 16/8/06 2:48 am  

  • Can anyone explain why the Barrhead Lochlibo bus has been reinstated as free while all the others have not?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 21/8/06 10:22 am  

  • Please read this article for an explanation for the re-intatement of the free bus in the Lichlibo area.

    Cheers.
    Andy.

    By Blogger Andy Slater, at 21/8/06 6:03 pm  

  • Could I just mention that the lochlibo bus has only been re-instated for one side of lochlibo road. Children on the Dalmeny Park Hotel side haved to pay if they want to use the bus!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 30/8/06 3:33 pm  

  • Great, we now have a three tier council service, 1) on benefits get everything, 2) live on a certain street or in a certain area get something (albeit we all have to pay) and 3) live on the wrong street and work hard get nothing! Can't wait for the next local elections.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/9/06 1:06 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home