Vital routes to be protected as part of buses overhaul
Councils in England will put strict requirements in place before 'socially necessary' routes can be changed or cancelled, the department said.
This is aimed at services to locations such as hospitals and schools.
The measure is part of the Government's Bus Services Bill, which reached its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday.
This will lead to an overhaul of buses, such as by giving all local transport authorities new powers to run their own services.
The Government will also reduce some of the red tape involved in bus franchising, including reducing the minimum period between local areas taking control of services and being allowed to start operations.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'We're committed to giving local leaders the power to shape the bus services their communities rely on.
'Our Bus Services Bill is a big step forward, protecting vital services that people depend on to get to work, school or essential appointments.
'We have taken a decisive step towards better buses, building on our £1 billion investment to improve and maintain bus services, keeping people connected, driving up living standards and growing the economy.'
Ben Plowden, of lobby group the Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Buses are the most-used form of public transport.
'Preserving vital bus services has long been central to our campaigning, so the new protections in the Bus Services Bill are very welcome indeed.
'Protecting existing services, and identifying and filling gaps in the network, is the way to ensure everyone can access opportunities and stay connected.'
Conservative shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon attacked the Bus Services Bill as 'an ideological move that threatens essential services'.
He said: 'They scrapped the £2 fare cap, slashed support for routes, and now want to strip away safeguards so councils can seize control of networks they aren't capable of operating.
'This is about Labour clinging to a fantasy of municipal socialism, whatever the cost to those who rely on local transport. Without the requirement to prove any benefit to passengers, Labour-run councils will be free to run yet another public service into the ground.
'We're not opposed to local decision-making. But this Bill offers no real investment, no credible delivery model, and no route to better services.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is doing almost everything badly, say voters in poll showing huge public dissatisfaction with Starmer over immigration, the economy and the NHS
The public think Labour is handling almost every major issue poorly, according to bleak new polling. A survey of more than 8,000 Britons has shown that most think the Government is doing badly on all but two of 15 important policies. The YouGov research found that people are particularly scathing about the way Sir Keir Starmer 's administration is tackling three crucial areas. 'Undoubtedly, the public do mostly think the government are handling many key issues badly, with this particularly noticeable on the three issues that have consistently topped our most important issues tracker since the election: the NHS, immigration and the economy,' the pollster said. Three-quarters think immigration is being handled badly, with a majority (52 per cent) saying ministers are doing 'very badly', while only one in seven (14 per cent) give Labour positive marks. Seven in ten say the economy and NHS are being handled badly, in surveys carried out since May, compared with just one in five who support ministers' efforts. In addition, more than six in ten say the Government is doing a bad job on welfare (69 per cent), housing (66), crime (64) and inflation (62). The only faintly positive result concerns Labour's handling of terrorism, where 37 per cent say the Government is doing well and 34 per cent disagree. And on defence the public are split which 34 per cent disapproving of ministers' approach and 41 per cent backing it. However YouGov pointed out that 'the last Conservative government was also seen as doing better than average on these two issues, particularly terrorism, suggesting credit may not be due to Labour for managing these issues uniquely well'. It comes after Sir Keir plumbed new depths of unpopularity in YouGov's ratings tracker, with even half of Labour's own voters now holding an unfavourable view of him. In detailed findings that may particularly alarm No 10, the survey found that women have a particularly negative view of the Government. Only 16 per cent of women questioned said ministers were handling health well, compared with 26 per cent of men. 'Although the 20-point gender difference on the handling of the NHS is exceptionally large, the pattern is not unusual, with the government's net handling score lower among women on all but one issue polled (transport),' YouGov said. It comes amid claims five million pensioners face paying extra tax to claw back their winter fuel allowance. A complicated solution being mooted to defuse fury at Labour slashing the benefit - worth up to £300 - would see it handed to all the older generation this season. However, around half - with annual incomes over £37,000 - would repay the money later through higher tax bills. The idea has been condemned by unions amid fears bereaved families could be hit with unexpected demands for cash. Labour insiders have voiced alarm at the 'optics' of trying to recoup the allowance from the estates of those who died after getting it. Introducing a tough means test on winter fuel allowance was one of the first announcements Rachel Reeves made after entering No11, and has been blamed for triggering the dramatic slump in Labour's popularity. Only those on the lowest incomes, receiving pensioner credit, have been entitled to the handout. Keir Starmer dramatically announced a U-turn last month, without saying what exactly was being proposed or when it would take effect.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
How Trump's first buddy Elon Musk became enemy number one
On the surface, it was a dream reciprocal alliance. Musk reportedly contributed some $250m to support Trump and other Republicans in the November elections, while Trump, impressed with the disruptive energy of the tech billionaire, got him to head up the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). But just five months later, their relationship appears to be blowing up in a spectacularly explosive fashion. This week, Musk, whose Tesla business has been hit hard by his association with the president, slammed Trump's flagship tax and spending bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination'. The outburst came just days after an Oval Office send-off from the president, which was attended by Musk sporting a black eye. Trump presented him with a brown box containing a large golden key emblazoned with the White House insignia, which he said he only gave to 'very special people'. Less than a week has passed and that special relationship is now becoming one of enmity and rage. Musk's resentment toward Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act', was on full display on X/Twitter when the tech billionaire wrote: 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore, this massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that Trump was aware of Musk's stance on the bill, a package that cuts trillions in taxes while scaling back programmes like Medicaid and subsidies that benefit Tesla. Leavitt tried to downplay the conflict, saying Musk's view 'doesn't change the president's opinion' of him, though tensions have clearly been simmering. The Independent noted this week that concerns Musk raised about the administration's crackdown on immigration (he wanted access to the world's best scientific brains, regardless of where they're from) were routinely ignored. And the frustration between him and the Republicans has been stewing for months. Now that Musk has fired the first public shot, his critics aren't holding back. 'He's a complete joke. He had no idea what the f*** he was doing,' one republican told Axios anonymously, fearing retaliation from Musk. 'Nobody really wanted him here. We couldn't wait to get rid of him.' Axios also reported that House speaker Mike Johnson told House Republicans in a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday that Trump himself is 'pi**** off' at Musk. Johnson said at a press conference after the meeting that he talks to Trump 'multiple times a day' and that the president is 'not delighted that Elon did a 180'. Another republican, backed up that assertion, told Axios: 'I knew it was a matter of time before the two alpha males would explode, fight each other.' Elsewhere, Trump's former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, a bitter enemy of Musk, has suggested that the first schism in their relationship came in March when the president refused to show the billionaire the Pentagon's attack plans for a hypothetical war with China. Speaking to The Atlantic last month, Bannon said of that moment: 'You could feel it. Everything changed. The fever had been broken.' Others believe the final nail came when Trump abruptly decided over the weekend to withdraw the nomination of Musk ally and investor, Jared Isaacman, to be Nasa's next administrator. Appearing on the All-in Podcast yesterday, Isaacman said he was disappointed when he learned that his nomination had been revoked, noting that the fact it coincided with Musk's departure from the White House wasn't a coincidence. 'There were some people who had some axes to grind, and I was a good visible target,' he said. This claim has been disputed, however, with complaints from Republican senators about Isaacman's track record as a Democratic donor also given as a reason for the decision. That Musk now feels angry and disillusioned is no surprise to those who have long believed that such oversized egos were destined to collide. But the roots of this volatile dynamic go beyond tariffs and immigration. Some say the toxicity of their relationship stems from the formative paternal influences that shaped both men. For Donald Trump, the blueprint for leadership was laid by his stern and demanding father, Fred Trump Sr. From a very young age, Donald was taught that there were only 'winners – or 'killers' – and losers', a lesson his father relentlessly imparted. According to Tony Schwartz, who co-authored The Art of the Deal with Trump, Fred was a 'very brutal guy' with 'very, very little emotional intelligence'. 'I strongly suspect that he had a relationship with his father that accounts for a lot of what he became,' Schwartz told PBS's Frontline website. Trump's niece, Mary, a clinical psychologist who wrote the bestselling book Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man, says Fred Sr 'destroyed' Donald by hindering his 'ability to develop and experience the entire spectrum of human emotion'. Elon Musk 's own childhood was similarly difficult and his relationship with his father, Errol Musk, was fraught with tension. Musk said in a 2022 TED Talk: 'I did not have a happy childhood, to be frank. It was quite rough.' His father is said to have taken the side of his son's school bullies, calling him 'worthless', something which he has denied. When Elon Musk moved to America, Errol allegedly told him: 'You'll be back in a few months. You will never be successful.' Being raised in environments where dominance, ruthlessness, and an inability to show weakness are paramount is unhelpful, particularly when it comes to father son relationships. 'In my field,' says Dr Frank Ochberg, a pioneering psychiatrist and trauma expert who helped define PTSD, 'if you have been abused by a parent when you're very young, that's of consequence. And there are various ways in which people who eventually had a powerful impact on the world for better or worse are evaluated in terms of parental impact. 'It doesn't take a rocket scientist – although Elon is a rocket scientist – to say having a bully as a father can make you a bully as a man, and an effective one at that. And if you do have the combination of Musk and Trump together, you can also empower other bullies, male and female – and they have.' Ochberg says Trump and Musk have both succeeded in bringing bullies and bullying tendencies into what we might consider sacred spaces – the workplace and, in Trump's case, one we associate with high morality such as the seat of government. But, he says, 'I think seeing them publicly disagreeing with each other diminishes the moral and political force of each of them.' It seems that a long-term, equitable partnership between the two was always an impossibility, especially one where one, Trump, demands utter loyalty, which Musk, a man his biographer Walter Isaacson points out engages 'Demon Mode', a state of intense focus and anger while working on projects, is unwilling to give. Cornell law professor Sarah Kreps notes, there's simply 'not room at the centre of politics for two such massive egos'. It was only November when Trump's son Eric, dismissing reports of a breakdown in his father's relationship with Musk, said his dad 'loves' and 'adores' the SpaceX owner, and considers him a 'super genius'. In the end, perhaps this was always the only way it could go: two men raised in the shadow of domineering and difficult fathers with something to prove; both intoxicated by their own authority, colliding in drama and chaos of their own making. The rift between Trump and Musk may read like a celebrity feud, but it's far more consequential. For now, Trump and Musk remain locked in a game of egos, and the rest of us are just along for the ride.
Metro
19 minutes ago
- Metro
Donald Trump's travel ban isn't actually about protecting Americans
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Donald Trump's latest travel ban isn't about making America safe. It's about making cruelty normal. The administration wants us to believe this is a sober, considered security measure. Twelve countries blacklisted. Seven more partially restricted. The justification? In Trump's words: 'We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States.' The accusation seems to be that these countries pose a threat to the United States based on historical precedent. Let's take that at face value for a moment. Myanmar, for example, is in a state of disarray. The UK Government advises against travel due to civil unrest, armed conflict, and arbitrary enforcement of local laws. So, it is possible that it has no functioning national vetting system. However, as far as I know, there has never been a single incident of a person from Myanmar carrying out a terrorist attack on US soil. Not one. The people fleeing from Myanmar are escaping widespread violence, not inciting it. So what exactly is Trump protecting against? The answer isn't found in intelligence briefings or airport protocols. It's found in a different kind of calculation – a political one. It's a message to Trump's base that the world – especially those with different faiths or colours – is dangerous. That only he can protect them and that empathy is a threat to be eliminated, not a value to be upheld. It comes after the Trump administration sought to end deportation protections for 350,000 Venezuelans in the US. They were (and some still are, after a federal judge blocked the move) allowed to remain under a scheme that permits people to work and live there if their home countries are deemed unsafe. The US Government's own assessment of Venezuela is that citizens and tourists are at risk of 'wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure'. Cruelty isn't the side effect. It's the point. It will tear apart families mid-airport transfer and strand people who have already sold everything for the chance of safety or opportunity. Foreign students who want to study or take part in exchange programmes are on the chopping block – a move that, I'm sure, has nothing to do with the legal battle between Harvard and the Trump Administration who froze billions of dollars of federal funding after accusing it of failing to root out antisemitism on campus. And let's talk about who's not on the list. Egypt, for example, where the suspect in the recent Boulder attack came from. Not included. This is despite Trump specifically mentioning this terrorist attack as a justification for implementing the new travel ban. Saudi Arabia, whose nationals carried out 9/11? Also not included. Those banned are often fleeing conflict, violence or persecution for their gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. All of which makes one thing clear: This isn't about risk, it's about optics. By design or naivety, women and girls, whose reproductive rights have already been weaponised and criminalised by Trump, and LGBTQ+ individuals, whose protections have also been stripped away, are now the targets of this performative and punitive ban. Even setting aside the moral argument, the legal case is clear. No one is advocating complete open borders, but if travellers have the proper documentation, how can you justify turning them away? When Trump introduced a similar order in 2017, targeting seven Muslim-majority countries, it was condemned as a 'Muslim ban' and tied up in endless legal challenges. President Joe Biden repealed it in 2021. This time, Trump says the rationale for the countries chosen is based on visa overstay rates or political instability. But, in my view, the evidence doesn't back this up. The White House wants you to believe this is a temporary measure, a pause until things can be properly assessed, but there's no transparency, no end date, and no consistent criteria. This is, as usual, theatre. Cruelty as a campaign tactic and the weaponisation of lives as a headline generator. More Trending Theatre has become the new normal for US politics, but we should still call it what it is. Punitive. Senseless. And above all, ineffective. A policy that punishes students, bans refugees, and abandons families is not national security. It's moral submission. This isn't border control; it's moral control in Trump's America, where kindness is weakness. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: The Virgin Island hate is atrocious – season 2 will prove me right MORE: In defence of Meghan Markle's twerking pregnancy video MORE: Double decker bus roof ripped off after crashing into railway bridge in South Norwood
