Congestion Charge Debate – Labour running out of arguments
March 24, 2008The Conservative Policy Forum has carried out polling in Manchester regarding the Congestion Charging plans, and also hosted an excellent public debate. I was very glad that the other two candidates for the main parties in the city centre attended and contributed as part of the panel. One thing was certain however, that Labour cannot make the arguments for the charge and the huge amount of debt that it wants the city to take on.
This remained Labour’s main argument at the debate, however this is baseless as Birmingham City Council have decided after extensive consultation that they will be applying for more money than Manchester, but WITHOUT the element of congestion charging.
Nobody anywhere is arguing that Manchester doesn’t need better public transport, and needs funding for it. However what we argue is that the two things are separate. Give the money to improve the trams, roads, buses and then lets think about a congestion charge. Also, nobody ever mentions bikes in this debate in general, where is the cycling policy!? I imagine its of very little interest to the Labour council, because cyclists aren’t going to make them any money.
The main problem I have is that the charging plans are purely a mechanism to pay back the debt that the Labour Council wants to take on. The primary problem of course was the Labour government removing the funding for Metrolink in the first place – without that, if the other 4 lines fot the metro had been built as they should have been, we wouldn’t be in this position today. The government is wasting vast amounts on money, and imposing inadequate settlements on councils that they are forced to think about desperate measures.
Technology always makes fools of politicians, and you have to ask how long it will be before greener technology will mean that the charge will apply to green efficient cars as well as polluting ones. This is where the green argument falls down, why not just tax the most polluting cars so that they’re taxed off the road. As cars become greener and therefore exempt, the revenue falls and the loan will not be re-payed by this method. Some say 5 years some say 10 for the big changes to car technology – the loan repayments will last 30 years. The recent episode with Salford council comes to mind – they agreed a deal with the BBC Philharmonic to pay £20 million subsidy for them to work in Salford, to be paid from a government grant that was then taken away. They are tied into the pledge, and now it will be paid either from council tax, or from a fund intended to fund improvements in deprived areas. Having the orchestra will be fantastic for Salford, however the council has been let down by the government, and tax payers left footing the bill.
The Lib Dems don’t really have arguments for or against, but make a concerted effort as usual to park themselves firmly on the fence so as to try to appeal to everyone – they want public transport, have doubts about bits of the plans but support it too. The one solid thing confirmed for us that evening was that they support national road pricing.
I’ll try to summarise the main points
-
Labour insist it’s not possible to submit a bid for transport funding without the congestion charge – not true. Birmingham’s Conservative led council is doing so.
-
The charging plans are purely a mechanism to fund the repayment of the debt. 75% of people would rather that the council used some of its £7 billion asset in the airport instead of borrowing £1.8 billion
-
The London charge doesn’t make money. It only makes money on the fines. The Manchester system works differently so that it won’t have the same capacity to fine people, as it will work on a microchip tracking system
-
The loan repayment period is so long, aside from the fact all the arcitects of this plan will have retired well before it’s repayed, technology will have changed more quickly and made a mockery of the plans to tax un-green cars. After the 30 years, the revenue from the charge goes to central government, so Manchester doesn’t benefit beyond the initial injection fo cash at the very start
-
If Birmingham borrows money, it will use a system of some kind of targeted rates to repay the loan, something it has more control over and certainty about
-
Studies have shown that congestion charges take non-essential journeys off the roads. This means drivers with no choice driving to work simply have to pay. People driving to shop, or to a concert or the theatre don’t travel and the arts and retail suffer as a result. In London 92% of retailers say the congestion charge has been bad for business
-
Even if you support the London charge, the situation here is very different, The charging area is bigger, the plans far more complex, the potential for loss of financial data is huge based on recent experience, the infrastructure already exists in London but not in Manchester.
The only argument Labour has remains that if you want better public transport you have to have a congestion charge. They haven’t been able to make the argument that Manchester needs a congestion charge for the purpose of a congestion charge, their only defence is to link it to transport funding and hope for the best. Its a weak patronising argument, and the people of Manchester deserve better.
I can address your points;
1) Birmingham’s Conservative led council may be submitting a bid for funding that does not involve congestion charging, but will it get approved? Methinks not!
2) You want the councils to flog their shares in Manchester Airport Group when the dividends have been financing public spending in the region for years?
3) What is the problem with that? The only reason London fines so many people is because their system is poorly managed. Manchester will get it right the first time!
4) People take out 30 year mortgages!
5) The operative word in your fifth point is “if.”
6) People really drive in to the city centre to go to the theatre at 8am. As for popping to the local shop, that is exactly the type of unecessary car journey that is meant to be eradicated! Walk to the shops instead, or don’t go in peak hours!!!
7) Yes, the situation is different in London. That’s why Manchester needs a different charging system. Whilst London has problems with cars driving right in to the city centre, Manchester has congestion problems on busy corridors that extend miles out of the city.
The people of Manchester deserve better than the same old “stealth tax” crap the tories keep throwing at us to imply that any changes in the tax system labour proposes are just shady efforts to bleed people dry. The fact is, no congestion charge = reduced private investment over the next decade and the crappy remnants of a public transport system completely messed up last time we were foolish enough to give the tories power.
Okay, to look at your points:
1. What does it say about our Stalinist govenment if they won’t look at a bid because it doesn’t contain congestion charging – they’re more interested in making a political choice rather than looking at what would work best.
2. Manchester would make more money if th value of the shares was in a standard bank account and they took the interest from it.
Retaining public ownership is preventing the airport from acheiving its potential.
How outrageous that such a system should be bailing out a financially incompetant council who finished bottom of the ratings in Manchester for value for money, and financil transparency. If they had the worst rating AND they’re subsidising themselves a great deal with airport dividends, just imagine how bad it really is!
3. Yes, you completely miss the point here. The London charge only makes some small amount of revenue because of the fines. If Manchester doesn’t have the same capacity to fine people there is no way it will make the revenue needed to pay the debt.
4. Yes people take out mortgages, however this is hugely different. a) you would need to show proof of regular income – the charge is untested and unlikely to do so b) if you have a house you have an asset to chash in if something goes wrong
5. Yes you’re right, one of our close rival cities may not land itself with the debt Manchester is accepting making itself even more uncompetative with rival cities. Leeds is in the top 20 cities in Europe for economic competativeness, Manchester currently is not.
6. The point is that Manchester is not like London, it has made itself a retail, leissure and residential city. It does not have the huge numbers of people having to make a journey into a large financial district. The charge only works if it removes essential journeys, but no charge does. If it doesn’t affect the bulk of the journeys into the city it won’t make the money to repay the debt.
7. The plans do not for example provide solutions for those kinds of problems, and charge many people in areas that will not benefit at all. Manchester has nowhere near the huge infrastructure before charging was introduced.
You don’t mention anything about the cival liberties issues, which doesn’t suprise me as its clearly very low down the Labour agenda. We will be expected to have a micro chip with all your details on it. We will be photographed in and out of the city, with cameras meant for terrorist survaillance – lets hope fare dodgers aren’t locked up for 42 days!
Where your argument really falls down is that the Conservatives introduced Metrolink, funded it, and allocated the funds for massive expansion. This is money that Labour withdrew, and they say we will only get the improvements (10 years late) if we accept a congestion charge. David Cameron has already said a Conservative governemnt would introduce the transort improvements without the charge, and it is the Conservatives who already have credability in this area, and Labour who have destroyed theirs. Even labour MPs agree this, and also Manchester Labour MPs and independent assesments state that congestion overall in Manchester has been falling. We need investment, not new taxes which mask the real problems and provide fake solutions.
You seem to associate me with the Labour party, which I find offensive. Must anyone in favour of the transport bid be a labour cronie?
I simply want to see my city have the transport network it deserves and for congestion to be curbed so that outside investment is not deterred.
You may have provided the money for metrolink, but you also deregulated the bus services, leaving many areas underserved and profitable routes flooded e.g. 192. You privatised the railways which now means that the priorities of shareholders are put before passengers e.g. higher fares, older trains.
Now you want us to privatise Manchester Airport? Why can it not reach it’s full potential in public ownership? Heathrow has certainly been run really smoothly privately hasn’t it? What is this obsession with public sector bad private sector good that you have?
[...] 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 [...]