Can I assume you’ve seen details of the full polling data (and my comments) on my blog?

There was also a second story in the paper.

I would stick in a couple of hyperlinks but I’m ridiculously busy for a Saturday.

All the best,

David

Well the last thread must be some sort of record for this blog, and is still being added to!

I don’t agree with you on the civil liberties argument and am broadly in favour of the congestion charge/TIF bid proposals. However I will say that it could have perhaps been introduced in a gradual way, starting with the city centre first and working outwards over time – and not necessarily as far as the M60 either.

Also, whilst not being against AGMA/GMPTE promoting the congestion charge with leading questions and the rest of it, I can see that £3m on publicity could have been spent better in other areas. I am inclined to agree, to a certain extent, with what Peter says regarding a pre-agreed cap on advertising funding for both sides of the argument. It’s too late for that now of course.

I am glad to read that if the referendum delivers a ‘yes’ vote you will support the proposals wholeheartedly.

Tom.

I have always said that if the people want congestion charging then i will work 100% to make sure the process is on time, on budget and delivers the most benefits to the people of Salford. When I met with GMPTE I said I dont want them with no other options if the bid falls down. I want great public transport which people will opt for, but I dont want to go down a route which forces people onto public transport.
I would be more at ease if the whole process had been handled better from the start.
I was told at a debate by Cllr Leese that a the congestion issue was to complex for a referendum yet now he supports it, closely followed by Cllr Merry.(I know what you will argue John but you didnt really promote it)
Then the Tif bid, hidden from the worlds on the grounds of competition, in effectively a one horse race.
Then come the signs on buses, ‘What Would You Say’ promising the world and if you look closely you can see the small print ‘partly funded by a peak time congestion charge’. A leading way to put a question?
Then we have the glossy information booklets, I would love to test a member on the public on what was in it and see what they got from it.
Then the T.V adverts, more poor loan add than informative advert, it should have had Carol Vorderman on it rather than Chris Bisson.
Then we have the press, the Advertiser is packed with Mr Berstein, Cllr/Lord Smith, funny how they will appear in the Salford Advertiser but wont talk to a Salford Councillor, apparently if he talked to me he would have to talk to all 700 councillors, if he had that many requests I would concede the argument.
Oh and lets not forget the pro Tif bid Squirrel, the ‘leaked polls’, the M.E.N editorials. Need I go on.
Oh and the Tif pods doing the rounds, very pleasant till you start asking about the congestion charge,then they couldnt get me out of the door fast enough.
With regards Liberals taking the lead on environmental issues, this charge needs cars on the roads to pay for the loan from the government. I am more concerned about civil liberties and the fact that I will be tracked going about my work, tracked in work and tracked on the way home. The prospect that those who need to drive and cant afford to pay the charge will create a new problem.
Have you examined what Salford will get from this bid, jobs? transport improvements that arent already funded and tagged with the bid? or do you think as I that Manchester will reap the rewards and yet again we will finish a poor second. I have not heard an argument that if the bid goes through and so many jobs are saved/created then if they are put into the same places via higher offices then we will be having these debates about congestion all over again, only this time it will be about them just putting the charge up.

Lets see how long we can keep this post going, ball’s in your court

I am pretty sure someone spending their own cash on this issue means a whole lot more than council officers spending other peoples. In fact, it is an absolute disgrace that £3 MILLION of taxpayers’ money is being thrown at a massive propaganda effort to sell the voting public a completely new and unjust form of taxation.

To be honest, I am disgusted at the way AGMA and the GMPTA have handled this issue and would recommend a vote against the proposals just on the underhand and cynical way it has been managed by self interested parties and non elected stooges.

This whole affair is democracy at its lowest ebb and undermines the whole ethos the UK was built upon.

Shame on the lot of them.

Can we include telephone canvassing/opinion polling in the local elections in Irlam in that total for Peel also? Though I concede that wouldn’t quite take the figure to £3m…

Tom.

I don’t know what Peel Holdings have spent but what I do know is that other than the odd letter from GMMG and some press coverage I’ve not seen any evidence that they’ve spent anything much at all. One would hope that the cost of hiring a man in a shark costume and erecting an advert on their own land would come in somewhere short of £3m…

You and I both know that once elected, politicians – of any party colour – can spend money on efforts to persuade the public of the merits of a particular proposal. I agree that tax payers money should never be wasted, but if AGMA took a democratic decision on how this money ought to be spent then it is legitimate to do so. You are of course entitled to criticise the amount of spending on this issue.

With regards to Peel Holdings – true enough they are helping to fund other projects. My point was that the ‘propaganda’ battle in congestion charge debate is far from the one-sided ‘vote for this or else’ campaign that it is characterised to be.

Do you have any comparable figures for the amounts spent ‘for’ and ‘against’ the congestion charge/TIF bid thus far? (This is a genuine question, as I am unaware of how much AGMA/Peel have spent).

Tom.