On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:27:46 +0100, Peter Beale
wrote:

How sensible it would be to make those concessions reciprocal, so that
English passes could be used in Wales and Scotland and vice-versa.

Particularly if you live near the border of one of the countries.

I never quite worked out why the responsibility for these schemes had
to be devolved. It makes no sense to me.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

Ian Jelf wrote:

Some counties used to be quite flexible in their approach, allowing
travel to and from major destinations outside their areas, while others
(West Midlands/latterly Centro) had a much narrower definition, whereby
pas validity absolutely stopped at the boundary.


I don't know if it still applies (the guide I have is 1/08), and it is I
suppose not strictly Centro/Network West Midlands, but on Travel
Coventry/Travel West Midlands a Coventry Daysaver extended to Bedworth,
Kenilworth, Leamington Spa, Balsall Common and Meriden.

Peter Beale

On Mar 31, 12:53*pm, Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Neil Williams
writes
[snip]
I never quite worked out why the responsibility for these schemes had
to be devolved. *It makes no sense to me.

No, nor to me.

Eh?! It's what devolution is *all about* - devolving the decisions for
a wide range of activities to the national bodies in Scotland and
Wales. It makes for better government. I'd have regional assemblies
across England, but that won't happen for a generation now.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Eh?! It's what devolution is *all about* - devolving the decisions for
a wide range of activities to the national bodies in Scotland and
Wales. It makes for better government. I'd have regional assemblies
across England, but that won't happen for a generation now.

It doesn't make for better implementation of any national scheme,
though. The needs for free travel didn't differ between England,
Wales, Scotland or even Northern Ireland. It would therefore have
made sense for it to occur across the UK, or for there to at the very
least be cross validity between the schemes.

And IMO regional assemblies over and above the current Counties are an
utter waste of money, unless you also remove a level of government
(e.g. by abolishing counties themselves and replacing them with
unitary authorities the size of a couple of boroughs).

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Mar 31, 5:22*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
Eh?! It's what devolution is *all about* - devolving the decisions for
a wide range of activities to the national bodies in Scotland and
Wales. It makes for better government. I'd have regional assemblies
across England, but that won't happen for a generation now.

It doesn't make for better implementation of any national scheme,
though. *The needs for free travel didn't differ between England,
Wales, Scotland or even Northern Ireland. *It would therefore have
made sense for it to occur across the UK, or for there to at the very
least be cross validity between the schemes.

It's a national scheme for England - feel free to argue at will over
the status of England as a nation (indeed the status of Scotland,
Wales and NI - the latter two in particular!). The point is that
transport issues were devolved to the relevant institutions in those
three nations/ regions/ whatever you want to call them. They call the
shots within their jurisdictions. The ENCTS is just that - for
England.

I don't see why it somehow inherently makes sense for it to be a UK-
wide scheme, as you seem to suggest. Anyway, the nature of devolution
means that there won't be a UK-wide scheme - Parliament only deals
with such matters the territory of England. (Again, feel free to
pontificate about a UK Parliament that only has powers w.r.t. some
fields in England only, in others in England & Wales, in others NI as
well, and in others across the whole of the UK - that's the current
constitutional settlement we have. Some can't stand the supposed
illogicality and messiness of it all - I secretly kinda quite enjoy
watching people getting all het up over it, because reality is indeed
messy and illogical!)

There could be cross-validity between the schemes if the various
institutions came to an agreement with each other - given the
differing funding methods that seems unlikely.


And IMO regional assemblies over and above the current Counties are an
utter waste of money, unless you also remove a level of government
(e.g. by abolishing counties themselves and replacing them with
unitary authorities the size of a couple of boroughs).

Having a single tier of local government was *exactly* what was
proposed for the North East. Also, the whole beauty of it would be
wresting various powers away from distant Westminster and Whitehall to
somewhere closer to home. It'd be a far better way of doing things
than an English Parliament, IMHO (which is how some would 'solve' the
'problem' of lopsided devolution in the UK).

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:14:02 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

I don't see why it somehow inherently makes sense for it to be a UK-
wide scheme, as you seem to suggest.

I think it makes more sense than it being by somewhat
arbitrarily-delimited[1] countries, especially in the case of Wales
(given the the Borders region between England and Scotland doesn't
contain fairly large conurbations in the way that it does with Wales).

[1] In real terms. Many people live in north Wales but carry on
business in Chester, say. They might want to use their free travel
there.

Anyway, the nature of devolution
means that there won't be a UK-wide scheme - Parliament only deals
with such matters the territory of England. (Again, feel free to
pontificate about a UK Parliament that only has powers w.r.t. some
fields in England only, in others in England & Wales, in others NI as
well, and in others across the whole of the UK - that's the current
constitutional settlement we have.

I don't call it pontification, I call it political debate.

Having a single tier of local government was *exactly* what was
proposed for the North East. Also, the whole beauty of it would be
wresting various powers away from distant Westminster and Whitehall to
somewhere closer to home. It'd be a far better way of doing things
than an English Parliament, IMHO (which is how some would 'solve' the
'problem' of lopsided devolution in the UK).

Though we should be careful not to devolve things like providing local
public transport services to such bodies. We'd end up with the silly
situations that exist in, say, Germany, France and Switzerland, where
local services stop at the border even where this makes no sense
whatsoever. We're better, IMO, with our quasi-national system whereby
local authorities can add funding but don't control the entire
service.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:27:46 +0100, Peter Beale
wrote:

How sensible it would be to make those concessions reciprocal, so that
English passes could be used in Wales and Scotland and vice-versa.

Particularly if you live near the border of one of the countries.

I never quite worked out why the responsibility for these schemes had
to be devolved.

because "they" wanted it to be!

tim

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Mizter T wrote:


On Mar 31, 12:53*pm, Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Neil Williams
writes
[snip]
I never quite worked out why the responsibility for these schemes had
to be devolved. *It makes no sense to me.

No, nor to me.

Eh?! It's what devolution is *all about* - devolving the decisions for a
wide range of activities to the national bodies in Scotland and Wales.
It makes for better government.

Why, and could you supply examples?

Devolution seems completely daft to me. Make the right decision, and make
it once.

tom

--
I have been trying to find a way of framing this but yes, a light meal is
probably preferable to a heavy one under the circumstances. -- ninebelow

Tom Anderson wr
Why, and could you supply examples?

Devolution seems completely daft to me. Make the right decision, and
make
it once.


Assuming that the right decision is the same one no matter where you are
looking from. Not really a very sensible assumption.

On 31/03/2010 17:22, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Eh?! It's what devolution is *all about* - devolving the decisions for
a wide range of activities to the national bodies in Scotland and
Wales. It makes for better government. I'd have regional assemblies
across England, but that won't happen for a generation now.

It doesn't make for better implementation of any national scheme,
though.

But it is still what happens if you have devolution, whether it is
sensible, optimal or or not.

Personally I'm not convinced that old people should be able to commute
to work for free, but that's just me being younger than them.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK