Yup, Ken Livingstone is set to raise the Congestion Charge in 2009 to £25 for Band G cars.
This is after extending the in charging area in Feb 2007. Surely this is not a charge but a tax.
I will never drive in central London during the week any more as the CC and parking charges are too high. I wonder how many other people who live outside London feel the same. Shops, theatres and dining establishments will find a drop in custom.
I wonder when the CC will be charged at weekends?
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6146442.stm
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
Couldn't agree more, i will not drive to london at all now to give Ken his CG. I feel I pay my road tax and that should be that. Not much of the road tax goes on roads anyhow.
|
|
I make a point of telling my customers in the charging zone that I will charge them £12 extra. £8 for CC, £4 for admin. Most complain bitterly, but it wasn't me that voted him in.
|
"Couldn't agree more, i will not drive to london at all now to give Ken his CG"
One could therefore argue that it's working! (Although £25 seems punitivs)
|
"Couldn't agree more, i will not drive to london at all now to give Ken his CG"
One could therefore argue that it's working! (Although £25 seems punitivs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
I agree - the whole idea is to prevent people driving into London so if people say they will stop then it's working.
|
|
|
|
I make a point of telling my customers in the charging zone that I will charge them £12 extra. £8 for CC, £4 for admin. Most complain bitterly, but it wasn't me that voted him in.
They didn't vote him in either. The system kind of did. Only one in ten Londoners voted for Ken during last elections. It was solely down to the bizarre "primary votes, secondary votes" and "no second round if no majority vote" rules....
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
|
Why anyone would want to go to the wholly unpleasant Central London, let alone pay to do so, is beyond me.
|
|
Surely someone who can afford a 4.4l Range Rover and the fuel won't mind paying 25 quid? So this effectively penalises people on low incomes who might drive older, higher polluting cars. What a stupid tax.
|
Surely someone who can afford a 4.4l Range Rover and the fuel won't mind paying 25 quid?
>> So this effectively penalises people on low incomes who might drive older, higher polluting cars. What a stupid tax.
>>
And people like me who keep an older car running because I believe overall it is greener than scrapping it for a "newer" version.
So my choice is to just pollute the perimeter of the CC area and I assume the pollution always drifts outwards so thats all right then.
Shopping in London? Forget it. I will not even be thinking about it.
Hospital visits, public transport not an option? Well tough, pay up! What a wonderful world!
P.S. latest bill to date for Ken and his boys trip to Cuba etc. £36K and counting. So thats all right too!
Various figures "Livingstone 'wasted £36,000 on Latin American trip'
"KEN Livingstone has revealed his stop-over in Cuba and aborted trip to Venezuela cost Londoners a "modest" £29,637.
|
|
|
|
Pay attention at the back. Band G only applies to cars registered after March 2006. So it won't actually hit "older, higher polluting cars".
|
Pay attention at the back.
>>Thanks for the clarification.I
|
|
|
|
|
Why anyone would want to go to the wholly unpleasant Central London, let alone pay to do so, is beyond me.
Couldn't agree more, it's hole.
|
|
|
Why anyone would want to go to the wholly unpleasant Central London, let alone pay to do so, is beyond me.
Straordinary fellow....
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that band A and B cars won't have to pay anything shows this is no longer a congestion charge, but a CO2 emission charge. People now go out and buy band A and B cars and clog up the road thereby increasing congestion - pathetic.
|
|
I think this suggestion may be a good thing.......hopefully it'll focus the minds of Londoners and persaude them to vote this morally corrupt baffoon out!
|
>>to vote this morally corrupt baffoon out!>>
Along with the government ministers etc many of whom are still using "gas guzzling" vehicles as ministerial transport, yet tell the man in the street not to do so...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
.>> .....hopefully it'll focus the minds of Londoners and persaude them to vote this morally corrupt baffoon out!
>>
unlikely, even with his recent £40,000 wasted jouney to meet his "bestmates" castro and chavez who jilted him.
the people who vote him in are not those who pay the congestion charge. as long as there is a majority of ethnic and underclass population in london, livingstone will win handsomely every time.
the congestion charge works as is demonstrated in the first few replies to this thread. the result of very high charges, and by law of unintended consequences, will be that as in the old soviet communist era, the roads will be mainly for the chauffeur driven ruling classes in big limos or 4x4s.
|
|
Out of curiosity, are politicians exempt from the charge?
|
>>Out of curiosity, are politicians exempt from the charge?<<
No I do not think they are.
They will jsut claim it back of us as travel expenses.
|
I live 30 miles on the outskirrts of london. I go into London regularly on business and pleasure. I have never had to pay the congestion charge. No one else has to either so whats the big deal. London is about the only place that has decent enough public transport to get away with it.
Why not go the whole hog. Ban cars completely - ah no tax income
So everyone, do what ken wants, dont drive in and dont pay the tax. see what he does then.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
it is particularly offensive for drivers with automatic transmissions, many of which have knee problems or similar - the reason many drive auto's in the first place
if you look at a list of typical family cars with auto transmissions you will see many are in surprizingly high groups
this already causes issues with car tax
really for people with minor health problems like this there should be a fairer tax regime in place
|
I'm sorry. Anyone who lives or works in London.. with all its ridiculous house prices.. and its excellent transport system.. and who then drives a car inside the City is nuts..At those prices, a taxi is economic.
It has been obvious for three years that the congestion charge will be increased.. so why complain ...re-arrange your life to avoid it.
Anyone with a big 4x4 deserves as much sympathy as they give to the environment..
madf
|
I go into London regularly on business and pleasure. I have never had to pay the congestion charge. No one else has to either so whats the big deal. London is about the only place that has decent enough public transport to get away with it.
Oh thank you. An example of one big deal.
I was ferrying my recently deceased brother for treatment to and from London medical centres in my old auto Mondeo. Dear dear Ken would be charging me £25 a trip. Obviously I would have payed double that or more in the circumstances but it is just not acceptable to be taxed for hospital visits, planned or otherwise.
Public transport certainly was not an option and I live 15 miles from central London.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not much of the road tax goes on roads anyhow.
that's because it's not road tax,hasn't been since the 1930s.it's a vehicle excise licence,i.e.a tax on car use.
Roads are funded by the treasury(national) and council tax(local).
|
Hmm. Assuming 250,000 vehicles a day enter central London 300 days of the year, at £25 a pop that equates to... erm, actually more than this pocket calculator can handle.
After fetching my scientific calculator which can spit out the answer in exponential notation, that's 1.25x10^9 pounds. Enough for 41,000 Cuba trips. He's going to be rolling in it.
|
What happens when everyone is driving the charge exempt cars? Seems to me congestion will be the same as before the charge.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is Ken after taxing the poor ?
If he wanted to stop cars he could ban them.
If he wanted to ban 4x4/Guzzlers/whatever he could ban them
If he wanted to discourage them he woudl charge £1000 congestion charge and then give licenced exception to nurses/covenet garden/whatever
Instead he wants to raise revenue, so he's making it as high as possible, but wants to maintain the pool of potential revenue, so he doesn't make it too high.
If I take the Landcruiser to London to work for the day that's £40 odd in fuel, £20 odd in parking, £n in depreciation from mileage and anyone thinks £25 will stop me ? Of course it won't. What it will stop is the people who cannot afford the price. And what it will hurt is the shift-workers and/or lower paid who find themselves without a choice.
Livingstone is an Ass. He's just a very presentable, polished and intelligent ass. Unfortunately.
|
Personally speaking I would never visit London again, by car or otherwise. The stinking attitude towards motorists has put me off for life. So my next mini-break weekend will be to York, Edinburgh or abroad - taking my spending money with me!
I thought ken was supposed to be a socialist? Seems the congestion charge is making London a play area for the richer drivers.
|
"I thought ken was supposed to be a socialist?"
But he is.
He supports loony causes and drinks champagne.
QED.
madf
|
|
|
|
York isn't far behind -expect a car ban in the city centre within a few years. The park and ride servcice is excellent though.
|
|
|
|
Odd how it's always the people who say they can afford it who claim it's "taxing the poor". Nonsense. It's taxing you. That's why you're bleating.
You'd be amazed how many poor people don't drive Landcruisers into London...
|
>>It's taxing you.
That's correct. That is also what I said. However, Ken insists its not a tax. Ken insists its to discourage cars coming in to London.
However, it is a tax I can afford since it is n% of my salary. And anyway, most of the time my company pay it. However, if my salary was half what it is now, then it would have an effect upon me of 2n%. If my salary was 1/10th then it would impact me 10n%.
Therefore the lower my salary the bigger the impact.
Therefore;
1) Its a tax
2) it hurts lower wage earners more
Is that a little clearer ? I did try to write it slowly to minimise your confusion.
|
And there's a handy term for that: it's a regressive tax. Those of a socialist persuasion normally worry about that and try to avoid it. Funny that, given the penchant for trips to meet "inspirational" socialist leaders in the Caribbean and South America.
As for K. Livingstone esq., I've met him twice and never want to do so again.
|
As for K. Livingstone esq., I've met him twice and never want to do so again.
Are you sure that Esquire is accurate RJ? I heard the little brute described as the Lord Mayor yesterday, perhaps on Sky News but may have been the BBC. Perhaps someone's trying to kick him upstairs...
|
|
|
|
No FM2R, I agree with your deductions that it's a tax and it hurts lower wage earners harder.
Congestion charging was introduced on 17 February 2003 by the Mayor of London and was designed to reduce traffic congestion in central London by encouraging people to use public transport rather than private cars.
It started life as a flat £5 charge, now raised to £8. In February 2007 it will have an increase area where charges apply.
The latest proposal means it will no longer be a charge to reduce congestion, as this seems to have been achieved. It is now proposed to make it an emmissions based charge. In any language this must be considered to be a tax. The diplomats who are refusing to pay at present have just been given the biggest justification for withholding payment.
What does surprise me after 3 years of operation is how so many people just accept the Congestion Charge as part of daily life.
There must now be many other councils eyeing this scheme to see if they can make it part of their tax raising scheme. There is little difference between a congestion charge, an emissions tax, a road toll or road pricing - they are all intended to raised money above their cost. Or to put it another way they are a tax, one that cannot be easily avoided, as motorists are a soft touch in an economy that requires freedon of movement.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
There are a number of issues to consider here.
As a congestion charge it has a number of elements and by its very nature (reducing congestion) also reduces polutants in london. No one can deny either goal is a bad one.
1 To work it needs to be punative. £5 was never punative, £8 is not punative. £25 is punative
2 To continue to work it needs to stay punative so needs to increase at least in line with wage inflation.
3 You have to accept that as your goal is less traffic, the direct result is rapidly falling, and thereafter continual low revenue from your charge. If you keep a high level of income your charge is not working and needs to be increased to higher and higher levels to the point your income collpases. At that point your congestion charge is working and you have achieved the desire of less traffic and less polution.
By having "tiers" in his charges, it is no longer a congestion charge. It is now blatantly a source of income, describing it as anything else is a lie. He knows that at £25 his income would collapse so not everyone will be paying that fee.
As the "charge" is now obviously a source of revenue that needs to be protected and is tiered, it is now a TAX.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
|
Those who can afford Band G vehicles in London just for the sake of having a thirsty big vehicle to be up on one and to travel 2 miles to the office, 1mile to the gym and 100yds to the school. Would'nt feel any diffrence @ £25/day it should be £50/day, then they will have sensible vehicles like the rest of us.
ooops
|
Lets just clear this up. It's not about 'gas guzzlers'.....it's about an arrogant, detestable politician.
These are a list of cars that will be hit.
If you thought the mayor of London's latest proposal to increase the congestion charge from £8 to £25 would just hit 4x4 drivers, think again. SMMT has today put together examples of 10 of the family cars ? people carriers, estates and family saloons ? that will also be liable for this 212 per cent hike in the central London motoring tax.
1. Vauxhall Zafira people carrier (2.0 litre petrol)
2. Renault Espace people carrier (2.0 litre petrol)
3. SEAT Alhambra people carrier (2.0 litre petrol)
4. Jaguar X-Type estate (2.5 litre petrol)
5. Peugeot 407 estate (2.2 litre petrol)
6. Honda Accord estate (2.4 litre petrol)
7. Ford Mondeo estate (2.0 litre petrol)
8. Saab 9-3 estate (2.3 litre petrol)
9. VW Passat saloon (1.8 litre petrol turbo tiptronic)
10. Citroën C5 saloon (3.0 litre petrol)
Seem like 'ordinary' cars to me!!
|
|
Nice tax on working families.
|
|
|
Are there no equivalent diesels on that list?
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
I won't link to it, because it's a bit rude, but sniffpetrol has some very interesting opinions on the various recent news stories about taxing that most evil of things, the motor vehicle.
(Link to www.sniffpetrol.com/ is okay. HJ)
As long as it's a NON clickable link - DD}
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a rural-dweller who has never lived in London, and would never want to, several things baffle me about this issue.
Every time I visit London I use the excellent (compared to the rest of the UK) public transport. I can't imagine taking a car into central London, and cannot understand why any sane person would want to.
Do Londoners who object to the congestion charge actually enjoy sitting in gridlock? If not, what is their alternative to it?
Do they enjoy breathing smog? If not, what is wrong with trying to do something about the problem by discouraging people from driving highly polluting vehicles?
Isn't Ken Livingstone is absolutely right to describe Londoners who drive large 4x4's as 'idiots'? Ken isn't daft - he knows perfectly well that the majority of Londoners agree with him. I am not anti 4x4's, I own one myself and use it to tow a horsebox, but I don't live or work in a city. If i did, i would choose a more suitable vehicle.
The "I am rich and important and I demand the right to do whatever I damn well please and to hell with everybody else" brigade are well represented in this forum. It is probably a good thing that Londoners have voted for a Mayor who tries to put the interests of the many who can't afford Range Rovers ahead of those of the selfish few who don't give a toss about anyone else as long as they are allowed their status symbols.
|
The funding of local councils has always been a small part local finance (rates or for a shortwhile, poll tax) and the vast majority comes from central government. This has always been the case in living memory, so local people pay a small proportion of the local services.
The Congestion Charge is mainly paid by people who live outside the area (residents get a 90% discount). This is a very important point, it is a source of finance from people outside the local area.
The only other charges local councils can raise against the motorist are parking charges and parking fines. Car parking charges can apply on either the highway or car parks. Parking fines can only be raised if a driver overstays the time limit or parks where expressly denied. By comparison the Congestion Charge is to drive along a public highway, one that has already been paid for and maintained - so it is a tax on use of a vehicle.
I do not disagree with bradgate about 4x4's being a silly vehicle to use in a city, however it is still the driver's choice of vehicle. Are we becoming so much of a police state that we can now be dictated to about what vehicle you can or can't use? I always believed we lived in a free society. We have laws to give us guidance as the right way to live our lives, so we can all live happily together. Any law that exceeds this should be challenged.
You have to remember it was only a few years ago that it was proposed to vary the rates of motor vehicle excise duty from a flat rate. This was in the name of protecting the environment, a measure to try and persuade people to use smaller more fuel efficient cars. Unfortunately this is now being used for pollution charging by Ken Livingstone.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
As a rural-dweller who has never lived in London, and would never want to, several things baffle me about this issue. Every time I visit London I use the excellent (compared to the rest of the UK) public transport. I can't imagine taking a car into central London, and cannot understand why any sane person would want to. Because:
1, I don't want my head smashed in by some 'care in the community type' or 'just plain violent' who objects to
me 'looking at him'
2, i don't want to sit near someone else who has considerably less bathing skills than i do
3, I don't like smelling someone else's food whilst they are eating it
4, i don't want to sit in the chewing gum/ marks from someone else's shoes
5, i would quite like to keep my wallet where it is
6, were i to be female i would not wish for some pervert to start rubbing himself up against me
7, i'm slightly claustrophobic and don't like it when the tubes stop for lenghty periods in the tunnels
8, i find it intensely irritating when people play their headphones loudly right next to me
there's more, but i feel my point is made
|
Westpig,
So these people only occupy the public transport system?
Sounds like you are arguing against visiting London, not just using the public transport.
I'm a "rural dweller" also, in the wilds of Leics, but have to admit that when visiting London, I leave my car at my daughter's in NE London and use the public transport - and have not (yet) encountered many of the problems you outline. Yes, it can be intimidating to those of us not used to the metropolis - but it's a hell of a lot less intimidating than trying to find a parking space. And yes, we have had some good days and nights out in London.
Compared to the rural area I live in , the public transport available in London at all hours is an eye-opener - and quite good fun compared to waiting hours in the rain for a non-existent bus in Leics.
--
Phil
|
good point, well presented........
it just highlights that there's choice and one way isn't totally right or wrong........ we're human beings who should be thinking for ourselves and are lucky enough to live in a democracy that allows us to (aren't we?)
i would wish to avoid london transport at all costs........although occasionally have to........but fully understand why others do so
|
|
|
|
|
