At last night’s Congestion Charge Debate – ably hosted by Manchester Junior Chamber of Commerce - the message from Sir Richard Leese was clear and unequivocal: “agree with me or get nowt”. It’s a depressing way to conduct political debate but also entirely inkeeping with the way in which the Labour Party do business in Greater Manchester – Salford’s Labour administration tried exactly the same sort of blackmail throughout the Building Schools for the Future consultation, making it clear to the RC Diocese that unless they agreed to close St George’s High School then Salford would lose all the BSF PFI credits.
I therefore wasn’t at all surprised to read the allegations made by Terry Christian about BBC Manchester “going soft” on representatives from Manchester City Council for fear of them taking their ball home. If true, this doesn’t say much about the editorial policy at BBC Manchester but it is even more damning about Manchester Labour. It is entirely within the modus operandi of the Labour Party locally to say “my way or the highway”. That is how they are trying to push for a “yes” vote in the TIF referendum. That is how they tried to push through the closure of St George’s.
Iain,
This does not constitute ‘blackmail’ or anything approaching it. The congestion charge/TIF bid proposals are being put to a public vote and leaders in favour of the bid are entitled to put their case. If people reject the proposals as they stand then so be it. Would you kindly tell us what the Tory model for improving public transport across this county would be?
On St Georges, I would be the first to accept that this matter could have been handled better. The fact remains (as I understand the issue, and am happy to be corrected) that one of our four Catholic secondary schools in Salford would have to merge/close due to falling overall numbers for the BSF money to be brought in. Why St George’s got the short straw I am unable to tell you – but the proposal stands and it is right to say that if it is not accepted then the rest of the package will not be delivered. Again, a precis of the Tory alternative would be appreciated. Thank you.
Tom.
Tom,
is not putting money on the table, sorely needed for investment but then saying accept my proposal or you get nothing, what constitutes ‘blackmail’.
we need to look at regulation. we need to look at providing a service people need to facilitate their daily lives, not something to be used as a cash source for travel companies.
i can see Salford slipping even futher under Manchester’s shadow under these proposals and Cllr Leese will ride his city’s improved transport system all the way to 4 more years election sucess and beyond.
Martin,
No it isn’t – I’ve never heard of a blackmailer that says “do this or else, erm, nothing will happen to you”.
To compare someone arguing for the congestion charge to a blackmailer is just plain silly.
Tom.
Of course it is blackmail Tom. What Sir Richard is saying is “do this, or else you’ll never get any investment in public transport in Greater Manchester, ever!”.
In fact it is worse than that, because some of the projects we are now told won’t happen without TIF had already been promised, and have now been shoved into the TIF package even though they should have happened anyway.
All I can say is that for Sir Richard Leese just to say “Rubbish”, at someone’s question is not the right way to answer a question and then to completely dismiss the so called rubbish answer.
Unless he was saying the TIF system was rubbish then I agree with you sir!
Iain,
But is that what was actually said? If so, that is as an absurd a statement to make as your accusation of the en masse blackmail of the Greater Manchester population.
Anything is possible in the future, TIF bid approval given or not. However I do think we will have to wait a very long time before the next opportunity to improve public transport on this scale comes round again. If that is what Cllr Leese meant then it is an expression of the reality of the situation, not blackmail.
Tom.
Tom that is absolutely the message being put out by your Labour colleagues and you know that very well.
Iain,
If you can’t confirm those words were used, I am forced to conclude they are merely your perspective on proceedings.
Deary me, and I thought it was only big bad Labour that engaged in spin!
Tom.
Here Tom, have another straw to clutch at!
Of course I can’t remember the exact turn of phrase used by Sir Richard, but I’m sure anyone who was at the meeting can confirm that that indeed was exactly the argument he made. As far as your Labour colleagues are concerned, it’s TIF or bust – losing even the things that had been guaranteed before we put the TIF bid in.
To make TIF work we need a return to regulation. Voluntary codes will not work so let’s fight for a Transport Bill with teeth. There is no point in having a shopping list of new bus routes for example and leaving to the bus companies to run them if they want to.
Tories deregulated and New Labour have no wish change the system – so we can kiss goodbye to a good service with or without TIF.