Greater Manchester says ‘NO’!

By Will Palmer

I was pleased to see that the citizen’s of Greater Manchester were not fooled by the ridiculous congestion charging plans. As I have pointed out before and reiterated in Student Direct the plans were completely flawed and would have jeopardised Manchester’s future.

How people like this can say this was a vote against progress I don’t know. Flat taxes are regressive taxes by definition.

Congestion Charging in Manchester: It’s just a bad idea

by Will Palmer

Ever since I started university in Manchester and first got involved in local politics the number one topic of debate has been congestion charging. I have been to numerous debates and heard an infinite number of arguments for and against the proposals. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these proposals, for me the argument boils down to one crucial fact: it is has been designed in such a way that it can only fail.

Forgetting the proposals for Manchester what is the main argument for congestion charging generally? Well you would think it would be to reduce congestion.

Coming back to the Manchester proposals, therefore, if THIS congestion charge achieves our number one objective it will fail. That is because these proposals contain a huge carrot in the form of £3bn worth of ‘investment’ into public transport (and probably a few hundred million into implementing the charging scheme itself). Hidden away , however, is the fact that £1.2bn of this money comes in the form of a loan which is to be paid back over the course of 30 years. It is proposed that this money will be paid back using the congestion charge. So, yes, in order for this scheme to work and pay back £1.2bn , we need congestion.

But I thought that was why we wanted a congestion charge, to reduce congestion? Obviously not in Manchester. It seems clear to me these plans have nothing to do with reducing congestion. In fact , as Rob Adlard argues, the whole scheme relies on congestion, if it is going to be sustainable. If its not sustainable then the loan will have to be repaid by increases in council tax. I would imagine before this happens, however, the vote inducing charging times will be increased – and then it will be much more than 1 out of 10 who pays.

I could list another 5 arguments here why you should vote ‘no’ but they pale into insignificance when you realise the whole scheme is a paradoxical mess that can only damage Manchester’s future.

We are being bullied (there is a very good example here) into putting another £1.2bn on the never never. I thought the follies of excessive borrowing would be clear by now but as we will find out on Monday some people never learn!