Posted by: davemorgan | November 7, 2007

The Manchester Toll Tax

As a Liberal Conservative, I am naturally cautious of imposing additional taxes or charges on people. However, this is not the only reason that while I support additional investment into public transport, I remain opposed to the proposed Manchester Congestion Charge.

Although I am required to utilise my car quite a lot for my job, I spend a significant amount of time not utilising that form of transport. If I am working in the City Centre, I will catch a bus as I work in a suit, while most of the rest of the time,  I will cycle into the City Centre, as it is Green, Healthy, and one of my passions in life. I believe that one of the great causes of congestion and CO2 emissions is people utilising their cars for short journeys, which could easily be done by walking, cycling or public transport.

However, a large number of people in Greater Manchester, including myself, have times when they must use their cars. We shouldn’t penalise these people, who often will be using their cars not for leisure purposes, but to go to work, and through taxes and services be improving the lives of all of us.

An argument often used by the City Council and pro-Toll lobby is that it will help the environment, because it will reduce car journeys. However, they then argue it will encourage people to work flexible, and move their car journeys. Despite these arguments contradicting each other, I disagree with both. I know, from my own and other experience, that flexible working isn’t as easy as it sounds - many services have to be conducted at specific, and usually office, hours. In addition, the Metrolink plan, which focuses on transport into the city centre, will enable people to move their travel onto public transport.

All the Metrolink routes are focuses on Manchester City Centre. While I agree, that this is a major transport link, it is by no means not the only route for everyone. One of the major reasons that the roads from East Manchester through the Mancunian Way onto the M602 is so busy is due to commuters working beyond the city boundaries.

http://www.gmltp.co.uk/pdfs/GMLTP01_02to05_06/metmapfut_14.pdf 

The link above shows the map of the ‘future’ Metrolink, although none of that is guaranteed. You can quickly see vast amounts of the Greater Manchester area is excluded from the Metrolink. East Manchester is currently poorly served in transport terms in comparison with most of city - roads are massively congested; there currently isn’t a tram; compared to South Manchester, buses are infrequent and expensive; and cycling can sometimes feel terribly dangerous.

That is why I support the Manchester Conservative policy. A Congestion Charge should remain as it should, a last resort. We should invest in public transport, and as vast a Metrolink as possible. Only then we should look at our infrastructure, and then decide whether we should proceed with an additional tax on motorists. The last Conservative Government planned the current Metrolink as a test to whether it would be successful. Seeing its success, it then promised to continue this expansion. The current New Labour Government has stalled on that investment, and now is offering the cash (of which much will be a Loan, not a Grant) only if we tax our motorists even more. This is scandalous - is London expected to do the same in order to get Crossrail?

We need a City Council which will stand up to Gordon Brown, and demand the investment which is Manchester’s right. The current leadership, whether it be over the Supercasino investment, or the Metrolink investment, will just follow Whitehall’s whims, rather than stand up for Manchester.

Posted in Manchester

« “Restaurant tycoon pledges £25M to east Manchester”
“Metrolink fares to go up” »

Responses

I couldn’t agree more, the basic idea behind Metrolink was to provide an easy way of getting from one part of Greater Manchester to the other. The way forward is so blindingly simple it’s obvious:

1. Extension No 1 - City Centre-Airport
2. Extension No 2 - City Centre-East Manchester
3. Extension No 3 - City Centre-Trafford Centre
4. Extension No 4 - Oldham & Rochdale, partly over ex-BR metals.

From an operational perspective, I see no reason why through services to most points cannot be operated over the network, or by using interchange points, as used on London Underground

I find it incredulous that the government makes a great song and dance about wanting to encourage us to use public transport and then either won’t fund it appropriately or forces operators to take out huge “mortgages” to pay for increases in capacity and other essential infrastructure projects.

By: Paul McKenna on November 18, 2007
at 6:36 pm

I’m undecided on the issue of the Congestion Charge. Sometimes I sit in one of the lengthy traffic jams on the Ring Road and think there has got to be a better way. On the other hand, I am loathe to pay any more to run my car, especially with petrol and insurance costs spiralling.
Improved public transport is the obvious answer, and it was certainly disappointing that the government chose not to extend the Metrolink in accordance with the original plan. I think the money went to pay for some London rail link or other (as is so often the case!)
However, I genuinely believe this government is aware of the public’s discontent the public transport system, which it has not improved enough from the shambolic legacy it inherited in 1997. I would hope that, along with affordable housing, public transport will be high on Gordon Brown’s list of priorities over the next few years.

In Manchester we have a shambolic bus network, thanks to deregulation in the 1980s. In my view more power should be returned to a central planner, such as GMPTE, to coordinate the bus and tram network and to set a coherent and transparent pricing structure. At present, you get on a bus and have no idea how much you’re paying or whether your weekly saver ticket will even be accepted on many buses. Operators are simply not interested in running services which are not profitable enough for them, so many areas suffer from lack of services, whilst others are overburdened with operators.
If London can get it right (and buses have improved tremendously in London since Ken Livingstone took charge) then surely Manchester should be given the opportunity too.

By: David Amini on December 9, 2007
at 1:55 am

London is an interesting point. While the Congestion Charge did encourage congestion to decrease for a while, its now shot back again. And regardless of your political persuasion, London has had a massive amount of investment compared to other major cities such as Manchester. And some of Ken’s pet projects, such as the Bendy buses, have been a disaster.

Over the 1980s bus deregulation, it is often used as a scapegoat for poor services. The Act itself enabled local authorities to subsidise services if required, and indeed many are. Local Authorities and the Traffic have a significant amount of power and responsibility when it comes to bus services, as shown recently over the UK North last year.

I think part of the problem with buses being used in regards to solving the congestion problem is that they have to deal with the same roads as cars, and in many inner cities like Manchester, there is simply no room to create any alternatives for the buses such as bus lanes.

That is why I think it essential that we need the Metrolink expansion. A better way to sort out the current problem would be to sort out the public transport problems, get a proper tram infrastructure covering Greater Manchester, and then look into congestion as it is then. Levelling yet more charges on the public should always be a last resort.

I think it is sad to compare a Conservative Government’s approach to Manchester compared to New Labour’s. The Tories creating a tram system for Manchester, while New Labour can’t promise it to Manchester, and even if we do get it, we will have to have a congestion charge, and some of the money will come from a loan which Manchester tax payers will have to pay back, a really great legacy for the future.

Gordon Brown has been in power now for 10 years, and yet the problems remain. Saying its on his priority list is different from it actually being there. The Tories were the creators and builders of the Metrolink. New Labour are only prepared to give us a much needed expansion if we accept a congestion charge, and take out a huge loan. I think that Manchester will only get a good deal when we have a change from the current administration - its just unfortunate that we may have to wait near 2 and a half years to get it.

By: davemorgan on December 9, 2007
at 6:01 pm

I very much doubt that this Labour stronghold of Manchester would be any better off with a Conservative government. The city was in decline for many years and it took an IRA bomb to wake up the previous administration and start to improve the situation markedly. Since 1997 this city has changed for the better in so many ways - thanks both to government investment and an enthusiastic Labour council who pitch Manchester as world city rather than a provincial backwater (as it was for so many years following its industrial decline). There are still a lot of social problems in Manchester, many of which are historic in this traditionally tough, working-class city and some of which can be pinned on the general downturn in manufacturing in the country since the 1970s. But without vital New Labour initiatives such as the ALMO programme and Decent Homes Standard, New Deal, minimum wage and increased investment in schools, Manchester would be in much worse a position had Labour not come to power.

It is surprising to hear Conservatives boast about how much investment they plan to make to public services. This was hardly something they could have been accused of in the 1980s and 1990s, when they either starved or privatised public services to the embarrassing state they were by 1997. And no, this government has not done a lot on public transport - they had a lot to contend with in dealing with arguably more pressing issues such as the NHS and Education, all of which have delivered huge tangible benefits for service users. However, they have now pledged £520m of the required £1.2bn to complete Phase III of the Metrolink expansion, with some possibly to be funded (as you correctly point out) via a Congestion Charge scheme. Presumably they have done the maths and worked out what they can afford to spend - something I would have thought most Conservatives would congratulate them for.

It seems that the Conservatives are adopting what used to be Old Labour’s territory - the fantasy world where everything is promised with very little in the way of financial planning having been done.

Let’s see what the Conservatives have promised us - apparently, matching Labour’s spending plans in most areas (well done) and changing inheritance tax. What a bright future awaits us under David Cameron!

By: David Amini on December 17, 2007
at 1:49 am

The Shadow Chancellor George Osbourne has guaranteed that all Public Spending or Tax Cuts are funded. We will not take risks with the British Economy.

On Inheritance Tax, I support the announcement to raise the limit to £1m, as well as abolish Stamp Duty for first time buyers. We have stated specifically where the funding will come from, and will continue to do so.

Manchester’s transformation began in the 1980s, with the excellent work of Michael Hestletine, and continued onto the 1990s, and I think the last 10 years have been one of missed opportunities. Manchester, and indeed Britain as a whole has NEVER had such opportunities. New Labour inherited an incredibly successful economy, and have been very lucky with the excellent global economic conditions since they came to power.

However, I think that the lack of preparation for the tougher time ahead has been shown in the past few months. The Government has gone from one crisis to another. This really isn’t a way to govern, which the British public increasingly see, and hence why at local government we are continuing to gain more councils and more council seats across the country.

Britain has a great future with David Cameron. It is one of hope and change, and Britain being a better place for all.

By: davemorgan on January 3, 2008
at 10:41 pm

Well, firstly I would challenge the notion that New Labour inherited a successful economy from the Conservatives. It was Gordon Brown’s historic decision in 1997 to give the Bank of England independence from political control which aided economic stability (in addition to favourable world economic conditions).
Interest rates under the Conservatives on the other hand were eye-wateringly high in the 1990s.

You state that the recent scandals hitting Labour are evidence that they are incapable of government, yet it is David Cameron who has sought to exploit these matters (which incidentally, could have affected any government).
Whilst in these difficult times opinion polls seem to have swung towards the Conservatives, more recent polls have shown the gap has narrowed back again. A few months ago the situation was completely the opposite, with a strong Labour lead. It is important to note that the 1992 pre-election polls were showing a healthly lead for Neil Kinnock’s Labour - which as we know didn’t materialise - and at this stage in any government some people will inevitably vote for change for change’s sake.

Labour still have time to regain the agenda, and expose David Cameron for the opportunistic, “yes man” that he so clearly has been. He may have picked up a few witty turns of phrase as the Eton college bar, which indeed serve him well at PMQs, but when it comes to experience and political nous Gordon Brown wins hands down.

By: David Amini on January 5, 2008
at 10:40 pm

I can’t believe can say Gordon Brown is not an opportunist - this is the man who was going to call an election, until the opinion polls changed. Brown is the biggest opportunist that exist.

His ‘experience’ is the experience that led to 26m people’s details being lost. His experience has led to the Northern Rock disaster. His experience has led to the Pensions Crisis that his literally devestating the futures of millions of people.

The reason that people are ever increasingly turning to the Conservatives is because we are offering a liberal, progressive alternative to the illiberal, backwarding looking Government. We are offering hope and change to a Government which is tired and has failed.

By: davemorgan on January 6, 2008
at 4:46 pm

I completely disagree (surprisingly!)

I don’t think you can attribute any of the above (with the exception of the election decision) to Gordon Brown personally. The actions of a careless member of staff within a government department, however wrong and potentially damaging, could just as easily have happened under a Conservative government and you know it! You will seek to exploit Gordon’s apparent dithering over the election, when really you should be grateful he didn’t call the election, since Labour would almost certainly have won.

The Northern Rock disaster is a product of the global credit crunch, nothing to do with government policy.

And as for pensions, as Gordon Brown has pointed out today, assets in pension funds have actually doubled over the last ten years, so the pensions crisis is opportunistically exaggerated by your party. Remember it was the Conservatives in 1980 who abolished the link between state pensions and earnings, which has led to a consistent decline in pensions over the years! As we begin to live longer, there may be a case for compelling employees to save a percentage of their salary, or to increase the retirement age. These are very sensitive issues for which cross-party concensus is required to change the system.

Much as your party can fantasise about the government being backward-looking, the truth is you can’t name a credible set of alternatives, merely offering variations on a theme. It is Gordon Brown who has set out the long-term vision for this country to take us forward over the next few years, as set out in his interview in the Sunday papers today.

By: David Amini on January 6, 2008
at 11:29 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories