I understand that the purpose of this proposal is to raise money from people who use busy roads at busy times - am I right? I would be a little happier about this if more of the money we already pay was spent on the roads or the transport infrastructrue. Is the purpose of the charge-
a. To price people off the roads
b. To raise money to fund a realistic value-for-money connected public transport system?
c. To be diverted into other doomed and money losing projects like the CSA, the Criminal Proceeds Recover Office which to date has cost more to run than it has collected.
d. Some other hidden agenda of which we shall never hear?
|
|
A big chunk of it will go in fees to whichever private (probably foreign) company is lucky enough to 'win' the contract.
|
One thing all Governments are averse to is ringfencing tax for particular causes. Take a look at how lottery money is now funding education and health mainstream activities which were originally funded from general taxation and were specifically excluded from funding when the Conservatives introduced the lottery. There's a huge black hole in the Country's finances and all attempts are being made to sort it out without mentioning 'income tax increases'.
In answer to your query it's being used to try and achieve 1 (just like air passnger duty is to encourage us to fly less and not raise money - honest) but will actually will be used for all four.
If they wanted to achieve 1 road tax wpould be £2,000 per year and fuel would be £5 a litre, but politicians know this would bring the Country to it's knees.
|
Get real - they are politicians so you cannot believe ANYTHING they say. Of course they DON'T want to price us off the roads.
If they did the tax take from motorists would fall and heads would roll in the treasury.
What they want to do is take just as much as we will stand without going too far!
|
Where does the money go? Why does everything cost so much?
There are a lot of unworthy elements looking unduly prosperous.
Alas, I am not one of them. Indeed my wallet is about to become £211 lighter for the privilege of driving my car when I want where I live. That's after the £100-plus just for parking it where I live and the cost of insurance and RFL.
Getting a bit dear. Perhaps I should invest everything I can raise in a debt-collecting firm.
|
One of my worse vices is procrastination. This often leads to trouble. As an example of the sort of trouble it can lead to, I append a slightly censored copy of a letter I posted this afternoon to a box number in Worthing or somewhere of the sort.
Please don't tell me the 'offence' is one of failing to display. I know this already.
**************** London******** 13 February 2007
to RBKC Parking Enforcement
PCN *************
Today I removed the parking permit from the windscreen of my car for 20 minutes. The purpose was to photocopy it for a congestion charge discount application. Having left the application rather late, I wanted to catch today?s post with it. That is why I did not wait until after 6.30 pm.
I placed a clearly written note inside the windscreen stating that I was photocopying the permit and would return it to its place within 20 minutes. When I did so, I found the enclosed PCN.
As a (urine)-take I think this is quite funny, but I hope you don?t expect me to give you £50. Very few jokes are worth that much. I suggest that in this case you take your own advice (see PCN) and ?do not pay the parking attendant?.
Yours faithfully,
|
1. Tony's pension.
2. Congestion charging consultation committees / working groups etc.
3. Consultants.
4. Hardware manufacturers, which ones depending upon whether it's camera or GPS based (what's the betting there's both?).
5. The operating company.
6. Their shareholders. In India.
7. The legal system as people dispute payments / get chased for payments.
8. Building Olympic stadiums (this is the lot that built the Millennium dome).
9. Paying for the world cup bid.
10. Introducing yet another hare brained scheme into the education system.
11. One armoured vest to be shared amongst 20 soldiers in Iraq.
12. Tony's pension.
|
|
|
|
Get real - they are politicians so you cannot believe ANYTHING they say.
In that case I assume you never vote for any political candidate.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I have a theory that a huge slice of public sector money ends up in the hands of private independent consultants who are called in to tell authorities what they want to hear and what they already employ staff to know. Who are these consultants? Often, they are former public sector high-fliers who have jumped off the ladder near the top with a big list of contacts who can become clients for their new independent consultancy.
|
The theory in Greater Manchester is that the mooted congestion charges will help pay for extensions to Metrolink. However...
In Stockport (not Southport :-}) we will apparently be expected to pay congestion charges for using all of the major through routes in the borough, even though Metrolink is unlikely to reach us in my lifetime, if ever. The congestion charge is a tax, pure and simple.
|
The congestion charge isa tax, pure and simple.
Nothing pure about it and it isn't all that simple.
|
|
|
|
I have a theory that a huge slice of public sector money ends up in the hands of private independent consultants who are called in to tell authorities what they want to hear and what they already employ staff to know. Who are these consultants? Often, they are former public sector high-fliers who have jumped off the ladder near the top with a big list of contacts who can become clients for their new independent consultancy.
Like a Head of Procurement going to work for a company awarded a contract by him to deliver services to the public organisation he worked for as Head of Procurement? Or the guy who was in charge of the large casino bid going to work for the winning company at £500 a day.
Consultant - someone who charges you to borrow your watch and tells you the time.
|
Lets not forget paying MPs travelling expenses.
--
Fullchat
|
Tony Bliar claimed £202. For that we could have bought him a one way ticket to somewhere - Chechnya perhaps!
|
Well I watched Despatches on ITV Monday night 8pm..
A review and explanation of possible congestion charging .. key point of the scheme being NO-ONE knew what the Gov't are proposing BUT it was assumed pricing would vary between town centres - expensive - and Motorways and trubnk roads.. cheap.
Ladyman.. Minister of Transport refused to confirm that Congestion charging would not raise more tax than current systms (surprise!:-)
But the key to me thought was the Law of Unintended Consequences... if rural roads are cheaper. then out of town shopping centres will become more popular...
and current Gov't policy seems to be against that.
Left and right hands as usual..
The outcome was - unsuprisingly a complete lack of trust in anything said... and the proposed congestion savings quoted of 40% - were probably unachievable..
!
madf
|
It's still remains an indisputable fact that if the schools are on holiday, then traffic flows are smooth and trouble-free.
I know that from nearly 30 years of travelling into the centre of one of the UK's best known cities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
If this stupid scheme came into force, what would happen if everyone stayed at home? How long would it take before the lack of "income" from the scheme bankrupted the operator? Maybe we should all go to work by hores and cart (although thinking about it, the clean-up bill aftwerwards might be expensive but good for the roses).
Maybe we should take a leaf out of the "French guide to Politics" and stage a mass walkout....
|
Apparently any GPS based system will use the EU's as yet non-existent and very unproven Galileo system, not the US system that we call GPS. On another thread someone has has posted the following excellent news..
"The most encouraging aspect of this report is the fact that it will need Gallileo to be working before it can operate. I doubt I will see that day. It was originally supposed to be in operation by 2012, this has now been set back to 2020. Another 13 years to get it going?? Make that 25, or probably never.
--
Phil"
Thanks Phil
|
I then watched the discussion on Newsnight BBC2 at 10.30pm.
Ladyman , Transport 2000, Liberal Shadow Transport Secretary, CBI representative an dothers.
Ladyman fell out with Sun Editor who claimed Ladyman had previously said he would ignore petition.
Transport 2000 woman was shrill and ruined her case (after a sensible start) by sounding like a nagging fishwife and going on about raising the cost of driving cars...(perhaps she should learn politics is the art of the possible and you need to persuade..?)
CBI said something had to be done as long as it was revenue neutral. Ladyman equivocated but said different meanings to earler ITV interview .
Basic premise agreed by most was no-one trusted the Government to implement it efficiently or not to use it as a revenue raising exercise..
Ladyman said we are misunderstood, you are not telling the truth about what we plan to do (but did not say what that was)...
Frankly it was NOT impressive...as an exercise to persuade anyone of the Government's case:
1. the devil is in the detail
2. there are no details published!
3. if the Gov't has specific plans they are kept from Ladyman (who sounded good but all spin and puff)
4. Score Gov't nil. Opposition about 3 (1 own goal).
My conclusion: it's a typical Gov't "talk first and think about the detail after.. and lets raise taxes" exercise.
Deeply unsatisfactory: all shouting at the end! (CBI came out best imo)
madf
|
Yes, Dispatches and Newsnight were both very interesting, as you say.
The government say the petition is misleading and states falsehoods and then refuses to clarify the basics of their proposed scheme, on which they 'welcome an open discussion '!
Dispatches showed how theoretical schemes would favour a Range Rover driver doing 35,000 miles pa over a housewife doing 10,000 miles pa on basically school runs. And yet they want us to give up gas-guzzlers.
Right hand and left hand. AGAIN!
|
From what I saw last night's Dispatches was about Tesco - was it a different episode or do you mean Trevor Macdonald? I understand they had a Focus group looking at the system and it's implications. Same issue - no clarity what is actually being proposed.
As one of the 'experts' said - if it was revenue neutral would you be interested to which the response was if it's revenue neutral whats the point in doing it? It can be reveue neutral for teh Govt, but It can't be revenue neutral for everyone as the examples showed.
|
Why spend billions on a revenue neutral system?
Exactly.
It will NOT be revenue neutral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the congestion charge is very expensive to run. It is said there is not a vast profit from it, wether this is true or not I can't be certain. The charge has brought a 15% reduction in traffic apparently. I am strongly against the congestion charge and road pricing, we pay our taxes to be able to get around freely and basically are hassled by the powers that be with their traffic calming and congestion caharges etc etc. It is crazy to try to get us out of cars and onto unrelable public transport.
|
It is crazy to try to get us out of cars and onto unrelable public transport.
I agree. London has one of the best public transport networks in the country, and it's still borderline as to whether the CC is justifiable in terms of whether a useable alternative exists. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, forget it. The UK as a whole will never achieve the standard of public transport that exists today, never mind what will be needed as more people travel.
The only solution to congestion is to prevent people travelling in the first place. Legislate for home working to be made compulsory for all employees unless a valid business case can be made against it. It will solve the congestion problem overnight (those who have to travel will have empty roads to do it on), and put a big dent in the work/life balance issues that also plague this country.
Cheers
DP
|
|
Sorry - last sentence of paragraph 1 should read "The UK as a whole will never achieve the standard of public transport that exists IN LONDON today, never mind what will be needed as more people travel"
|
I have no problems with well thouht out and implemented taxes to try to keep us out of congested areas.. it makes sense.
I fail to see that the Gov't has thought out anything.. including the Consequences of their actions.
If it reduces congestion, it reduces travel in hot spots. So tax take from fuel falls.
Country roads are cheaper.. so people move and live out of cities..
And motorways are cheap too - so the M25 and M6 become even more congested...
Thought through?
Those muppets can't even think about reforming themselves properly so what chance of sorting out what is a very difficult and intractable problem which has HUGE political consequences...?
Answer.. based on what I have seen is they will make it worse....
madf
|
There is NO way that public transport is cost effective, nor should we be forced onto ti! I have just costed a journey from Stamford Lincs to Glasgow and back. £50 a head to fly from East Midlands plus cost of getting there and parking. £132 a head by train from Peterborough plus cost of getting there and parking; this ifare ncludes what is laughingly known as an OAP discount! Take up to 54people for £260, the AA cost of driving my car for the 780 mile round trip. It makes flying look like the best option, even with Grasping Gordon's £10 surcharge and the checkin and security aggro!
|
Minor typo - my car would not take 54 people to Glasgow - I meant 4. As an extra I have found that I could fly one way to Hong Kong for about the GNER return fare, Peterborough to Glasgow. Bearing in mind that the train carries about the same number of people as a 747, more if the train is full, and that the aircraft costs $80 million to buy , way less than a train, it still make the train look like an expensive option within UK
|
|
|
|
