The organisation has previously been one of two business organisations - along with the Knutsford-based Forum of Private Business - which has actively opposed the scheme.
Following Sir Howard's presentation, made at the IoD's hub in Peter House yesterday, north west regional director Darrell Matthews announced his intention to review its policy.
"In the past, our members have had issues about the size of the proposed scheme and its potential impact on competitiveness and profitability," said Mr Matthews.
"Sir Howard started by presenting us with an overview about the proposals for the scheme - and one of the reasons why the scheme is so large is because of the necessity to look at all the traffic routes into and out of the city. As for competitiveness, Sir Howard's view is that the scheme will manage traffic better, which will make Manchester a better place for businesses to operate.
"The information that we have gained from this event will enable us to review our existing policy."
Representatives from the Greater Manchester Momentum Group (GMMG) - an anti-charge alliance with more than 110 members - and pro-congestion charge group United City addressed the IoD's members.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Laura Norder, Didsbury (22/07/2008 at 10:02)
But, should the IoD - people that know a thing or two about business - come down on the side of the C-charge, there will still be the moaning minnies, consumed by self-interest and bitterness, complaining that they are being victimised.
I await their response with interest.
Aunty Glo, Great Manchester (22/07/2008 at 11:29)
just because you seem to sit around on your lofty perch in Didsbury all day does not mean that all of us do!
Business will suffer as a result of the Con charge,most Mancunians will be hit in their pockets to fund this scheme,there will be less money to spend on other things.
And SIR Howard will retire to his home in the country never to set foot in Manchester again.
gulliblenotme, bury (22/07/2008 at 11:46)
The multi million pound publicity machine running this bid ia being paid for by the tax payer,all the haves are out in force trying to convince the public that it is a good idea for the have nots to pay more tax.
Every effort is being made to get the result the politicians want.We are being told all the plus points but where is the other side of the argument.
In the consultation leaflet it states that it is estimated that fewer than 20% of peak time drivers will pay the charge now due to exclusions and concessions , if so few drivers will pay how will the loan be repaid and is it really worth the trouble and cost to set up just because the councils want the money to improve what they and private transport companies companies have ruined.
Information shows that it is not more cars that cause the congestion it is DEPLORABLE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
The holy grail seems to be Metrolink, I used to use this service from besses to manchester 40 years ago but it was called the Train, the only difference now seems to be that in manchester city centre it now runs on the roads taking up more space and causes congestion
GIVE US A REFERENDUM NOW
Laura Norder, Didsbury (22/07/2008 at 11:51)
City centre today, actually. And, while you 'lie-a-bed' at weekends, I can often be found ensuring my business - and staff - still have employment when they turn in on Mondays.
Typical response from one of the 'Me-Me(s) regarding the C-charge though. It's always about 'you'.
And how on earth could you possibly know anything about Sir Howard Bernstein's future plane - are you his p.a.?
Of course not.
Aunty Glo, Great Manchester (22/07/2008 at 12:09)
do not lie abed at week ends as time must be spent on household chores and shopping as week days spent earning a crust to keep the economy going.
Not his PA,but I do know for a fact that he has been going round businesses glad handing and pushing the con charge.
He is not far off retirement,and will not be living in Didsbury/Burnage or Bury.
PS he does not work for nothing.
PPS he does not have a plane,but does have plenty of plans!
Simon B, No Taxation without Representation (22/07/2008 at 12:13)
Sir Howard Bernstein is the Manchester city council chief executive.
Why is he the man speaking up the proposed congestion charge?
He is not an elected offical, he can say what he wants without the consequences of public opinion at the ballot box.
Surely it should be the elected Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council doing this pro congestion charge PR?
Jane Bennett (FPB), Knutsford (22/07/2008 at 13:50)
Jane Bennett, Forum of Private Business
Laura Norder, Didsbury (22/07/2008 at 14:06)
... and the rest of us don't have 'household chores'?
It's SHB's role to consult companies and leaders of commerce - it's what he does. And as for where he will live should he retire... so what? It's no one else's business.
I'm surprised he never mentioned 'the plane' to you though... what with you being so close. ;-)
Manchester Dale, Manchester (22/07/2008 at 14:08)
That doesn't mean that his view is right of course.
Snare Drum (Manchester Against Road Tolls), Ashton-under-Lyne (22/07/2008 at 14:56)
we deserve better (22/07/2008 at 15:38)
“City centre today, actually. And, while you 'lie-a-bed' at weekends, I can often be found ensuring my business - and staff - still have employment when they turn in on Mondays.”
Isn’t that a ‘Me-Me’ attitude also?
It’s a matter of individuals’ priorities; you appear to be an employer who wishes to maintain a profitable business (nothing wrong with that at all) and see the CON-charge as beneficial to your circumstances.
Just as, in comparison, there are (many, many) people whether due to geographical, financial, or inconvenience of public transport, that simply would not benefit from the CON-charge.
Like it or not, we are all ‘Me-Me’s, you, me, councillors, the businesses set to gain from these proposals.
I couldn’t care less if someone thinks of me as being selfish, what’s good for the goose…
By all means, keep looking after your business and your employees, others will be looking after their jobs and their families.
we deserve better (22/07/2008 at 15:56)
I think we’ve gone through a time loop or something - would this be the same money from first time around when no other city except Cambridge applied but then retracted their bid? Maybe Ruth Kelly thinks if she asks enough times she’ll get some takers.
Makes you wonder why we’re constantly being told the CON-charge element must be a pre-requisite of any funding when, as you and others have quite rightly pointed out and everyone else knows, the funding is there already.
I’ve said it before and there must be some rank amateurs out there, it’s obvious there’s not one city in the country going to touch this £6billion with a barge pole, you cannot get a better bargaining position; re-negotiate and get the full amount. No-one pays a CON-charge, congestion looks after itself, we all get a better transport system and those who wish to travel by tram, bus, train, car can do so without at least 15 years of debt. Where’s the problem?
Re-negotiate before the £6billion suddenly disappears into the London Olympic pot because that’s where it will end up (that or some other ‘Landan’ project.)
Aditya Kohli (22/07/2008 at 16:06)
Some of the improvements they are making on certain tram and train lines. Will actually make journeys longer.
I love how the business consultations are between 8am and 10 am. When most of us are going to town or working. This is no where near our lunch time either.
I would love to see how results are counted and how local councils have voted yes on our behalf. Without there even having a consultation.
We should try and hold try and get a ref going. Who is with me on this.
Adi
AlexisV (22/07/2008 at 16:13)
Ah, dear old 'Laura' the philanthropist.
You may be willing to participate in a spot of self-sacrifice, but the rest of us are not charities.
It's not 'me, me, me' - it's 'us, us, us'; the vast majority of Mancunians who don't want to pay to commute to work.
MC Spanner (22/07/2008 at 21:33)
Supporting is another altogether. I hope our new leader at the IoD isn't foolhardy enough to make a decision without consulting his membership.
Laura Wolfe wouldn't have been so easily swayed by Sir Howard.
Shark Sandwich, Heaton Moor (23/07/2008 at 11:00)
I'm afraid you are the selfish one. You are just looking for a empty road on benefits day. The economy cannot work if everyone was like you, you do need people to earn and business to make money so that you can leach off society.
Ensuring business flourishes is the one way to help everyone prosper. Following the TIF proposals will ensure that business in the region suffers. Sure some businesses may relocate out of the c-charge area to Wilmslow, Alderley edge etc but more will leave the region and some will leave the UK altogether and leave unemployment behind.
Whist Bonkers Bernstein and Loopy Leese are not that daft, the TIF proposal gives them a nice well paid cushy appointment or two and the dole - scum have less hassle picking up their benefits, the rest of us face either economic hardship or have to ship out and get on elsewhere.
Jay B, oldham (24/07/2008 at 08:47)
and that means at anytime.
its a stupid idea that would just pave the way forward for more and more road charging schemes which will ruin the countries economy even more that it already is.
I'd just like to know what laura norder would get out of this proposed scheme if it actually happens?
mark.armstrong@boltblue.com (24/07/2008 at 13:38)
Chess Piece Face, Manchester (24/07/2008 at 18:38)
we deserve better, the Government has made it clear from the start that the TIF money is contingent on there being some form of road pricing in the bid. What makes you think they're going to change their minds now?
AlexisV, you say the "vast majority of Mancunians" don't want to pay the charge. The vast majority won't have to. Only around two thirds of us own cars, and even if we all suddenly chose to drive to work during peak hours, less than a fifth of us would actually pay the charge. I'm not sure 13% qualifies as a "vast majority"...
Chris, Irlam (25/07/2008 at 09:12)
If we campaign long & hard enough they will change their mind. Labour are finished.
we deserve better (25/07/2008 at 09:25)
Gordon Brown’s government isn’t averse to the odd u-turn - it also made clear the abolition of the 10p tax band but is now having to make concessions due to mass public opposition.
The government also made clear their position to introduce a national road pricing scheme but guess what, due to the same mass public opposition it’s now been ditched.
You wouldn’t have thought it possible but it looks as though the regional TIF is even more unpopular than the national scheme for all the reasons previously mentioned on these comments pages (surely you can see that?)
Of course the government are not going to just change their mind just as the local powers that be aren’t going to go back to Ruth Kelly, cap in hand, “Please may we have some more?”
Spineless, blind, deaf and incapable of serving the populace, makes you wonder why we have politicians - yet again it will be left to mass public opposition to get rid of this scandalous bribe and the councillors will soon follow.
Shark Sandwich, Heaton Moor (25/07/2008 at 09:40)
It's typical of the selfish attitude of the pro charge people who only care for themselves. Those against are looking at the bigger picture.
PW - Dole for Labourites!, Manchester (25/07/2008 at 09:45)
Jay B, oldham (25/07/2008 at 11:54)
We dont! we oppose the con charge.
the transport improvements where promised to us before without any strings attached
Chess Piece Face, Manchester (25/07/2008 at 22:12)
Jay B, no-one has ever promised us £3 billion of transport investment without any strings attached, and no-one is likely to in the foreseeable future. This is the best offer we're going to get, and we'd be crazy not to accept it (and given the current financial situation, I'm sure the Government would be delighted to get the money back)...