Voters reject congestion charge

phykell · 12-12-2008, 16:11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/7778110.stm

79% voted against with a >53% turnout

Thank goodness for that - this would have hit the NW badly and of course it's been shown not to work in London. What a shame that so much money and time (three years) was wasted on this ridiculous idea.

I wonder what the fall-back plan is though...

Burble · 12-12-2008, 16:27

I was genuinely expecting it to be a yes and was very pleased to be proved wrong.

Del Lardo · 12-12-2008, 16:27

Fall back plan will be another vote and another one and another one until they get the result they want.

Cynical? me?

Burble · 12-12-2008, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Del Lardo

Cynical?

I prefer the term 'realist'

Zirax · 12-12-2008, 16:31

The gov't blackmail tactics also went against them here. They were given the ultimatum of "say yes and get substantial investment or say no and get nothing!" I was glad when this was rejected. You do have to ask questions along the lines of "where the hell does all the fayre and tax money go if it isn't normally allocated to road/rail improvements?"

Mainly as this was a trial which would then be rolled out across the country. Manchester would have been the first.

edit:- I do wonder what they are going to do now and if they will ballot again.

cheets · 12-12-2008, 17:14

I voted NO, infact parents and sister voted NO, live 30 miles away form Manchester and what they were offering for our area was crap, a few extra buses to Manchester, it only costs £3.80 for a return to the city off peak.

phykell · 12-12-2008, 17:48

The principle of charging us extra to pay for a better standard of public transport is fundamentally wrong anyway and that precludes the question of whether a charge would actually reduce congestion (it wouldn't - as has been demonstrated quite clearly by the London debacle).

We already pay a huge amount of tax and the amount of road tax we all pay, plus the tax on fuel, is astronomical. This Government simply can't do their sums if the taxes we pay for our cars is being used to pay for education, health, etc. There should be a clear channel for transport taxation and subsequent expenditure, likewise, social/economic taxation and expenditure.

Imagine a taxation system which only took as much as it needed rather than taking as much as it can get...

Blighter · 12-12-2008, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by phykell

Imagine a taxation system which only took as much as it needed rather than taking as much as it can get...

And then wake up

12-12-2008, 16:11	#1
phykell Vodka Martini Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 833	Voters reject congestion charge http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/7778110.stm 79% voted against with a >53% turnout Thank goodness for that - this would have hit the NW badly and of course it's been shown not to work in London. What a shame that so much money and time (three years) was wasted on this ridiculous idea. I wonder what the fall-back plan is though... __________________ Last edited by phykell; 13-12-2008 at 02:47.

12-12-2008, 17:48	#7
phykell Vodka Martini Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 833	The principle of charging us extra to pay for a better standard of public transport is fundamentally wrong anyway and that precludes the question of whether a charge would actually reduce congestion (it wouldn't - as has been demonstrated quite clearly by the London debacle). We already pay a huge amount of tax and the amount of road tax we all pay, plus the tax on fuel, is astronomical. This Government simply can't do their sums if the taxes we pay for our cars is being used to pay for education, health, etc. There should be a clear channel for transport taxation and subsequent expenditure, likewise, social/economic taxation and expenditure. Imagine a taxation system which only took as much as it needed rather than taking as much as it can get... __________________ Last edited by phykell; 13-12-2008 at 02:48.

12-12-2008, 16:27	#2
Burble Rocket Fuel Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,826	I was genuinely expecting it to be a yes and was very pleased to be proved wrong.

12-12-2008, 16:27	#3
Del Lardo Absinthe Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cambridge Posts: 2,539	Fall back plan will be another vote and another one and another one until they get the result they want. Cynical? me?

12-12-2008, 16:31	#5
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	The gov't blackmail tactics also went against them here. They were given the ultimatum of "say yes and get substantial investment or say no and get nothing!" I was glad when this was rejected. You do have to ask questions along the lines of "where the hell does all the fayre and tax money go if it isn't normally allocated to road/rail improvements?" Mainly as this was a trial which would then be rolled out across the country. Manchester would have been the first. edit:- I do wonder what they are going to do now and if they will ballot again.

12-12-2008, 17:14	#6
cheets Long Island Iced Tea Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 442	I voted NO, infact parents and sister voted NO, live 30 miles away form Manchester and what they were offering for our area was crap, a few extra buses to Manchester, it only costs £3.80 for a return to the city off peak.