A CAMPAIGN began today for a business-only referendum on plans to introduce congestion charging across Greater Manchester, in addition to the public vote due to take place in December.
Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
issued its call after a poll revealed strong business opposition to proposals for a peak-hour, weekday levy in exchange for £3bn of public transport improvements.
Richard Critchley, policy manager for transport at the Chamber, said: "We have made it very clear that the business community is divided.
"We have called on the
Association of Greater Manchester Authorities
(AGMA) to hold a business referendum. We need to see and hear what business is saying.
"A referendum of local voters will not necessarily gather all the view of business stakeholders, as not everyone who runs a business is resident in Greater Manchester.
"Businesses must be given the chance to have their say."
AGMA, representing the 10 local authorities of Greater Manchester, has submitted the bid for Transport Innovation Fund cash to enable the proposed scheme to go ahead.
A spokesman said: "To hold an entirely separate referendum for the business community would present a number of difficulties, not least in defining `the business community' and the parameters of the proposed business referendum.
"The consultation period is ongoing, and as part of this process we are engaging with, and listening to, the views and opinions of businesses across Greater Manchester, and these will all be carefully considered."
United City, an organisation which is backing the congestion charge plan, said the voice of business was being already heard during the current debate.
No one was available for comment from the
Greater Manchester Momentum Group, which opposes the proposals.
Keep up with the developing Congestion Charge story with our interactive timeline here .
What's your view? Have your say below.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Gramsci (26/08/2008 at 08:21)
Laura Norder, Didsbury (26/08/2008 at 10:02)
... they were all probably stuck in traffic.
Rammylad (26/08/2008 at 10:10)
The reality amongst the selfishness is that the facts on road congestion are a million miles away from the supposed reality recreated in the propoganda magazine and as such this is a money making scheme pure and simple.
I say no to shopping anywhere that supports the con charge. Come on Manchester start displaying signs to show if you support taxing manchester motorists or not.
Black Flag (26/08/2008 at 10:14)
Sir Reginald Ringpull, A-u-L, Lancashire (26/08/2008 at 11:46)
"in exchange for £3bn of public transport improvements."
As £320 million goes on the charging infrastucture (ie not a transport improvement) then over £200 million goes on "non capital costs" ( ie on people not traffic improvement) and £600 million is put aside to pay for cost over-runs. I make it less than £1.7 billion is down to "Transport inprovements" (at todays prices), and as the majority of the funding is to pay for the structure & fabric on which the trams run and the interchanges for public transport "Transport inprovement" is not a phrase I would use. However nice the waiting surroundings for your public transport vehicle of delight are - they are just inprovements, having waiter service as you travel from Stockport to Manchester in a non crowded bus whilst watching TV are improvements in travel.
Note; Bid is based on £1.5 billion Government grant, £1.2billion loan and £100 million "Third Party" contributions. Which is £2.8 billion NOT £3 billion
lbc, Trafford Park Village (26/08/2008 at 13:09)
The reason why the business community should at least be heard is that, unfortunately, hardly any improvements to the outer ring roads congestion have been considered in the present TIF Bid, so that the supplier of goods will not see any improvements at all. The companies of the Greater Manchester Momentum Group have offered their expertise free of charge to AGMA to work with them to address this important part of the regeneration, but have, as far as I know, not been taken up so far. If such big boys offered their expertise for a major project to our business, we'd welcome them with open arms, we certainly would not be too proud to accept expert help....
Then there is the tactic "accept TIF Bid and congestion charging because to do nothing is not an option". Strange, that up to the moment of Government offering money with strings attached "doing nothing seemed to have been the option for years". Neither the public or businesses should not be bullied into thinking that unless the TIF Bid and congestion is approved, all of Greater Manchester shall fall into eternal decline. It is the responsibility of AGMA and GMPTA to work out and present plan B - a plan that should look at improving traffic on the outer ringroads and a plan that also looks at low-cost solutions to Metro and Bus traffic. Why should yellow school busses and a few extra carriages to the Metro at peak times involve the electronic monitoring of a congestion charge scheme and a huge debt over 30 years? Why can't we have some improvements immediately? What is AGMA doing with all the taxes we are paying already - is none of it ploughed into transport infrastructure ?
C.Brass (Languages for Business Centre)
citycentre, manchester (26/08/2008 at 13:28)
Black Flag, well thats how things normally work isn't, or am i just overlly cynical?
Black Flag (26/08/2008 at 13:47)
I don't think you are, but at least up until now the influence has been limited to lobbying and back-scratching. It's the first time I've seen any group be so brazen as to attack the very basis of democracy and suggest that public policy making should be taken out of the hands of the electorate and be subjected to the prior approval of businesses.
Jay B, oldham (26/08/2008 at 14:28)
by doing this manchester as a whole will be in debt for years.
be it a worker in the city centre, or in the suburbs, or someone who just passes through. not to mention anybody who just lives in the borough. everyone will face a extra cost or charge direct or indirectly because of it?
Manchesters doomed if it goes ahead.
Chris Green, Chorlton-cum-Hardy (26/08/2008 at 14:35)
The government would claim that it is about regulating traffic and environmental taxation but, whether it is by design or not, it will also allow every individual to be tracked any time they make a journey by car. This has far bigger implications for civil liberties!
If you consider the range of government initiatives together then it becomes a much bigger concern: vehicle tracking; ID cards; DNA database; facial recognition CCTV; the recording of all electronic communication by GCHQ. Can the government be trusted not to abuse this data and also to keep it secure?
Chris, Irlam (26/08/2008 at 14:54)
Obviously not, which is why the only sensible vote can be NO to the Toll Tax.
Laura Norder, Didsbury (26/08/2008 at 14:58)
Works fine? Do you only venture onto the roads to 'sign on'?
You've said you won't be 'here', to see what you claim will be Manchester's decline... good-oh!
Munkey Boy (26/08/2008 at 15:01)
Chris, Irlam (26/08/2008 at 15:03)
I thought you were against referenda?
Now it is the very basis of democracy is it?
Make your mind up sunshine!
Munkey Boy (26/08/2008 at 15:09)
Once again (26/08/2008 at 15:10)
Jay B, oldham (26/08/2008 at 15:36)
Huh laura? dunno what you're babbling on about?
yet again nothing at all constructive to add to the debate when i've highlighted a major point.
Munkey boy, these are the same people who gave you forecasts for continued economic boom only a year or so ago. i never take any notice of them as they're only used to either reassure people to invest or to scare people not to.
Black Flag (26/08/2008 at 15:38)
The basis of democracy is that the each member of the electorate should have equal power when it comes to making public policy, irrespective of whether the decision is made directly or through representatives.
I'm against referenda, for two main reasons.
Firstly, they result in ill considered decisions, because most people have neither the time nor the inclination to research the proposals properly.
Secondly, they create an uneven debate. When politicians are arguing over a policy as part of an election campaign, they are on a level playing field. When a referedum is held, the government will generally favour one course of action and will push for that, which will cause the people on the other side of the debate to start whinging about getting unfair treatment. Does that sound familiar?
Trumpetman21, Irlam (26/08/2008 at 15:40)
Black Flag (26/08/2008 at 16:58)
Because we're supposed to live a democracy.
Chris Green, Chorlton-cum-Hardy (26/08/2008 at 17:06)
I’m sure that it the light of this, the people of greater Manchester will see through the British Government and Manchester City Council’s bias and pressure to reject the TIF bid.
If they want us to have better public transport just hand the money over, which has already been allocated, and spend it on the trams, etc, but don’t foist a wasteful bureaucracy on us.
P.S. Democracy does not necessarily infer one man one vote – just look at the trades union movement with Labour Party. Can one union boss really claim that he has the unanimous support and therefore vote of one million members or more?
Rammylad (26/08/2008 at 18:46)
http://www.pcc.org.uk/
Rt Hon Dr Rev MC Spanner MP QC FCA FRICS JP OK (26/08/2008 at 18:56)
GMMG has a big PR problem. United City has poured millions into Manchesters PR industry and are having a major influence on the debate. The No campaign seems to have gone very quiet. I appreciate that the government have thrown millions on advertising but having nobody to comment on articles like this is a bit of a poor show.
lapat, manchester (26/08/2008 at 19:01)
NS (26/08/2008 at 21:50)
Have a think about it. Why does United City even exist? Because GMMG has put up the all the arguments that expose the flaws in the C-Charge plans and AGMA won't engage in debate directly so it was created by as a defensive mechanism. What was GMMG's early objective? To get a referendum - result. What has it been doing at endless Chamber meetings? Presenting its arguments head to head with United City and now what does the Chamber want, a referendum. The effect on business is clear from the GMMG MORI poll - business is opposed to this plan and AGMA has failed one of its four key tests. Business has listened to GMMG and rejected the C-charge.
Now ask yourself, who has actually created the debate, then moulded it and now is seeing the hard results. It's not United City is it?