So despite the last-minute political grandstanding by the Labour Council to try to save some votes in west Salford, the Congestion Charge rings are set to be pretty much exactly where they were proposed to be all along.
This means that local residents here in Walkden - along with those in Little Hulton, Ellenbrook, Boothstown, Worsley, Peel Green, Irlam and Cadishead - will bear the full brunt of the congestion charge tax whilst receiving few if any benefits… and in some cases service cuts.
On Friday a cross-party group of MPs and Council Leaders together with the business community launched the “no” campaign which has my full support. Residents here in Walkden, and across west Salford, get little from the TIF package and yet pay through the nose for it. I will be voting “no” in the forthcoming poll and I urge local readers to do the same.
Thanks Iain for your excellent coverage of the whole TIF/road toll tax issue on this blog. I shall also vote ‘NO’!
Iain,
I have said it before and I will say it again… Do NOT complain or try to take some sort of moral political high ground in regards to Salford’s share of the TIF Bid because YOU have done NOTHING to secure a better deal for Salford.
You say you want improvements to public transport in Salford but not a congestion charge. Iain Lindley – Master of the bleeding obvious! Of course we would all like that Iain. Just inform me then, if we get another Tory Government (you remember, the ones that pushed ahead with the disastrous privatisation of our transport network) will they be giving Greater Manchester £3Billion to improve our public transport without congestion charging? Not a chance!
You say:
“On Friday a cross-party group of MPs and Council Leaders together with the business community launched the “no” campaign which has my full support.”
Shouldn’t you have said, “On Friday a cross party of MPs and Council
Leaders who are scared of losing their seat/seats together with the business community scared of losing money launched the no campaign which has my full support.” For example, Mark Hunter MP is against the TIF Bid yet is a Member of the Lib Dem Transport team which advocates congestion charging - obviously not on his patch though. Barbara Keeley is another.
Iain, your arguments (or lack of them), strange calculations and interpretations of this bid have been laughable from the start.
I’m getting a strange case of deja vu here Adam. You’ve made very similar comments before and when I replied to them here the conversation quickly petered out…
As for the MPs, I don’t think you can accuse Graham Stringer or Graham Brady of being scared of losing their seats at the next election. As for Barbara Keeley, who has now bizarrely qualified that she is against the charge but not part of the NO campaign, I couldn’t possibly comment…
Iain
Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Sorry Adam but that’s nonsense. I’ve made a huge number of representations over my four years as a Councillor about how public transport in Walkden, in Salford and across the conurbation could be improved.
I don’t support the TIF bid but if the vote is in the affirmative - and it’s up to the public now - then we all have a duty to make sure that the money is spent wisely. That certainly isn’t the case at the moment. I’ve made plenty of suggestions and will continue to do so.
Ok Iain,
I will ignore the first point you make about ‘the number of representations over the last four years you have made for Walkden regarding the TIF Bid.’ That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Your second point is what I am questioning you on. You say you have made ‘plenty of suggestions and will continue to do so.’ Could you now please clarify EXACTLY what you have asked for the people of Walkden regarding the TIF Bid, who you have asked and provide evidence please?
Sorry Iain,
The end of that first quote is suppose to read ‘…regarding TRANSPORT and not the TIF Bid.
Adam said:
“Do NOT complain”
Oh dear, Iain must have made the mistake of thinking we live in a free country where decisions are open to scrutiny and criticism and where he, as an elected representative is entitled to stand up and say - “I think this is bad for the people I represent”. Obviously you’d prefer a Stalin-esque system where people who don’t agree with you are not permitted to do such outrageous things as daring to argue with you.
“will they be giving Greater Manchester £3Billion to improve our public transport without congestion charging?”
Because of course all problems can be solved by throwing money at them. Look at the NHS. I am not familiar with your political leanings Adam but this is a classic Labour approach - “We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it”. I believe Iain has more than demonstrated that this system will *not* improve transport for those in the area he represents therefore he is quite entitled to oppose it.
“On Friday a cross party of MPs and Council Leaders who are scared of losing their seat/seats”
Or put another way still… “A group of MPs and Council Leaders who are making decisions that the people they represent agree with” - hardly controversial for most people. We call it ‘democracy’.
“together with the business community scared of losing money”
Oh yeah. That is outrageous. Why the hell *shouldn’t* a business oppose something that is going to lose them money??? Many small businesses were badly affected by London’s congestion charge and I would suggest it is a perfectly legitimate concern for those in Manchester - particularly at this already difficult time. So people in some areas will be paying more to drive for reductions in services and then be laid off by businesses losing money. I can see how wonderful this scheme is.
“Iain, your arguments (or lack of them), strange calculations and interpretations of this bid have been laughable from the start.”
And yet your defence of the TIF Bid seems to consist of “£3 billion investment, £3 Billion investment, £3 Billion investment - how dare you disagree with me?! - £3 Billion investment.” This isn’t relevant if you live in an area that isn’t going to see any improvment and if I lived in such an area I would expect my councillors to be opposing this scheme.
Chris,
We do live in a free country. That is why I have the right to comment on what I believe in, just like Iain does as an elected representative.
I am NOT criticising Iain for standing up and saying what he believes in as you suggest. What I am trying to point out is that Iain says he doesn’t agree with the TIF Bid because there is nothing in it for Walkden or West Salford yet from what I can see, he hasn’t actually done anything to secure a better deal for the people he represents from the TIF Bid. This is why I have asked him to clarify EXACTLY what he has pushed for in regards to the TIF Bid for Walkden?
Chris you said:
“Because of course all problems can be solved by throwing money at them.”
So you at least you admit that in Greater Manchester, we have a PROBLEM with our transport network? I agree with you though that throwing money at “problems” doesn’t always work and you are quite right to point to the NHS as a good example of this. However, I ask you then, how on earth do you expect to improve our public transport without substantial investment?
I still stand by my claim that the majority of Council Leaders, MPs and opposition parties (within their respective Boroughs) are only against the TIF Bid for the simple reasons of either being scared of losing votes or being opportunistic in trying to gain votes. None of them have put across any plans on how we improve our transport in Greater Manchester without the TIF Bid.
I saw a great Tory leaflet last month that asked people to “think of the driver and vote no.” Haha. Now, that pretty much sums up exactly why I could never vote Conservative.
Chris, please do not forget that in the end we have a referendum on this. The people will decide what they want.
P.s. I await Iain’s reply to my previous post.
Adam, when the proponents of the charge and anti charge stance start to truly listen instead of attacking, only then will effective politcal discourse occur and effective solutions emerge.
The way the whole issue has been handled, any suggestions brought by either side are pilloried and ripped apart for underlying motives.
AGMA and the media have done little but to intensify the split between pro and anti, the adverts for the yes campaign were extremely dissapointing, ‘I wont have to’…shame about the rest who will. Although I can imagine the anti campaign will take a similar tact, such is politics.