C-charge: majority voting

David Ottewell

November 02, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (29) | Previous | Next

C-CHARGE: Voting changes

GREATER Manchester's 10 councils are set to introduce a majority voting system for key decisions - which could include the congestion charge.

It could mean individual authorities introducing measures they oppose.

The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) currently makes major decisions by a consensus but council leaders have unanimously agreed that majority voting should now be used as a `last resort' on a range of issues. A two-thirds majority would be necessary.

Senior sources said it was too early to say whether the proposals would affect any final decisions on the bid for money from the Transport Innovation Fund.

The bid - being considered by the government - would see £3bn worth of public transport improvements in exchange for a peak-hour congestion charge of up to £5 a day.

Liberal Democrat-led Stockport and Conservative Trafford voted against the bid being submitted at a meeting in July.

They were only thwarted because it was ruled that the leaders had a `general agreement' it should be decided by a one-off majority vote.

If the bid is successful, it has been feared Trafford and Stockport could still jeopardise the scheme by refusing to take part. Majority voting would remove that possibility.

Other issues which could be decided by vote include area-wide `strategic policies and plans', responses to government consultations and `decisions with financial consequences to the member authorities'.

Leaders of Labour councils said the move was not an attempt to railroad the opposition. Labour controls six councils, the Tories and Lib Dems have two each.

Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese said: "Sovereignty will remain with the 10 local authorities, and they would have to opt in to these arrangements.

"We have a willingness to work together. This is not about one [political] group bullying the others."

| Submit Comments | Comments (29) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Rob (Manchester Against Road Tolls) www.manchestertolltax.com, Denton (02/11/2007 at 11:08)

This just shows that they are willing to introduce congestion charging at any cost and by any means necessary. They still have not asked the public properly.

Black Sabbath (02/11/2007 at 11:08)

"Senior sources said it was too early to say whether the proposals would affect any final decisions on the bid for money from the Transport Innovation Fund."

What a con, this measure has been brought in for one reason and one reason only. So they CAN railroad the Toll Tax Plans through at all costs. Labour OUT!

Chris, Irlam (02/11/2007 at 11:13)

This is absolutely disgusting!

Leese Jones et al are determined to steamroller these proposals through at all costs - this little revelation proves that 100%.

People need to realise that this LABOUR idea jeapordises the whole democratic process of local government & councils. What is the point of voting for anyone but Labour when at AGMA level Labour will get their own way anyway?

The UK (England in particular) is rushing headlong into a socialist Labour-run dictatorship and Greater Manchester is the pilot.

Get rid of them before it's too late!

Snare Drum, Ashton-under-Lyne (02/11/2007 at 11:17)

If it isn't bullying then I don't know what it is. You vill do as you or told or you vill be shot. This bunch of Hitlers will never listen to the majority as has been proved by umpteen polls and one in particular carried in the MEN with over 80% against congestion charging, oooo forgot that one have we??? Well I haven't Mr Livingston(Leese)

ace, manchester (02/11/2007 at 11:23)

DUMP LABOUR AT THE EARLIEST YOU CAN.

Kurt Stephens, Sale (02/11/2007 at 11:40)

So, if people are to be believed on here, Tory Trafford, Tory Bury, Lib Dem Rochdale and Lib Dem Stockport all voted for this policy because they were steam rollered into it by Manchester CC and their Labour colleagues on AGMA.

Those four coucils must be exceptionally weak councils if they do not have the courage of their convictions - or maybe things are a little bit more complicated that the simplistic view being put forward by the anti's.

Make no mistake, AGMA (and that is ALL 10 boroughs, not just the labour ones) wants the newly devolved powers that the governments sub national review white paper will bring - this is a big step in that direction, and explains a little bit better why there is unanimatiy in the voting for this proposal.

Dave (02/11/2007 at 11:51)

Snare Drum: Well, actually, all the polls have shown the majority in favour of the charge if it means improvements in public transport.

Clearly the majority of real people don't hold the views of those who comment on this website - Labour was not voted out at the last local elections despite everyone knowing their stanc on the charge.

Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (02/11/2007 at 11:52)

More pro C-Charge propaganda from AGMA’s department of public deception, whoops sorry, the MEN

Cenwulf (02/11/2007 at 11:57)

"It could mean individual authorities introducing measures they oppose."
Translation: Certain councils will be able to introduce measures that voters have opposed in other areas. Manchester Council and the GMPTA need to hang a large sign outside their offices saying "We don't do democracy here."

Mr Angry, Bury (02/11/2007 at 12:21)

Agree 100% with opposition to this but the Tories were no better. The problem with this country is that it is not a democracy, which is a greek word, meaning rule by the people.

It has the appearance of one but, when it is analysed, you simply get a political class which does what it wants, regardless of public opinion or the wishes of the voters

The only people who do benefit are the legal establishment and big business together with miscellaneous other hangers on, like consultants and members of unelected quangos who impose their wishes on the majority

Blue Ape With A Drum (02/11/2007 at 12:33)

Yeah whats wrong with congestion anyway? gridlock?,co2? What sort of pinko, nhs lovin,pollution hatin, planet likin,rabid communist could be opposed to these lovely effects of car use ? How dare they defy the will of Clarkson.They shall be fumed,until they bow to King Jezza.

better off red (02/11/2007 at 13:11)

Mr Angry, I like the cut of your jib.
How about this, we have the right to vote (anonymously) on which policies we want in and which we want out.
I wonder how the voting would go on the following, if people were allowed to vote on a per issue basis in total anonymity:
1) new housing v green field
2) congestion charge
3) immigration
4) public ownership
5) banning of the traditional customs v incorporating more diverse customs (eg christmas lights).

There's lots of emotive issues out there but labour and the tories rail road agendas through, usually at the expense of the next generation.

Bring back British Rail and the Marathon chocolate bar!

Giles (02/11/2007 at 13:25)

We pay our income tax to the government and this then becomes government funds. The council wants to borrow billions of these funds (our tax that we have paid once already). The governmrnt will loan these funds (our money) to the council. The council can't afford it so they introduce the congestion charge/tax. So we pay the loan and the interest on our money with, yes you've guessed it, our money.

Would you borrow money off yourself and charge yourself interest? Of course not, but in effect that is what we will be doing.

shayla (02/11/2007 at 13:33)

We being dictated to by someone we voted in and now they won't even go to the polls so we can vote them out again! How long can they hold on to that position and avoid an election?

IF WE OBJECT, THEY JUST IGNORE US AND CHANGE "THEIR" RULES.

BROWN - GET YER COAT !

Chris, Irlam (02/11/2007 at 14:09)

Newsflash for Kurt - Stockport & Trafford both voted AGAINST the TIF bid submission but it was railroaded through by Leese claiming consensus was no longer needed remember?

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1011/1011988_ccharge_trafford_votes_no.html

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1012/1012159_ccharge_stockport_says_no.html

Black Flag (02/11/2007 at 14:58)

Better Off Red, voting on a per issue basis would not work at present, because most people aren't capable of coherent thought.

For example, ask two random samples of the population the following two questions:

1 - Would you like to see a large cut in taxes?

2 - Would you like to see more spent on public services?

You'll probably see a large percentage in favour on both counts, even though they are incompatible.

Dave Pickup (02/11/2007 at 16:49)

Black Flag.The two statements are compatible! When you consider how much Government waste and over-employment of public service personnel in non-jobs over the past ten years,there is enough fat to both cut taxes and to improve services. Let's face it,Governments/councils couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery

wkdboy1, Woodley (02/11/2007 at 17:13)

No matter what what is said the only way to stop this congestion tax C**p is to get the Labour party out NOW, that will mean forcing them out of power, either through an election (like thats gona happen) or by force, i.e riots, national strikes, or mass evasion of council tax. But i bet most wont even be willing to fight for our freedom anymore.

Speaking Bull, East Tepee (02/11/2007 at 17:30)

S*d the majority voting for the Labour chronies - let the populance who will have to pay vote.

Snare Drum, Ashton-under-Lyne (02/11/2007 at 17:37)

Well Dave you talk through your backside as well don't you. Ask the people, get out there like I did and don't just take someone else's word. All 10 councils did not vote for it as you well know and labour are refusing to go to the polls because they are scared of the inevitable. They need the motorist to pay back the loan. If traffic was reduced, where do you think these con artists will come looking for the money next, you blinkered fool!

Saint, Middleton (02/11/2007 at 20:18)

With high oil prices and higher interest rates, these charges should definitely not apply to business's that use vehicles, or at-least, companys who's business revolves around the use of vehicles. And considering around 65% of the fuel price is tax...they should have enough money to sort out these problems anyway.

gladys rowbotham, Manchester (03/11/2007 at 08:41)

I can almost see the manilla envelopes crossing palms!

Professor Bob (03/11/2007 at 10:40)

It has been said time and time again about Dick Leese being power mad.This is just another of his "Go Back" statements.He says one thing and days later says something totally opposite.Dick Leese is not a man to be trusted and should not be leader of any sort.We need someone who cares for the people and not for their own status.Mind you Dick Leese has to do what Gordon Brown orders.

ace, manchester (03/11/2007 at 12:04)

Professor Bob
Isnt this just what this government (labour)do all the time didnt blair promise us a referendum on the EU then said we are not having one .all this goverment are bareface liars.They dont even hide the fact. DICTATORS.
And we complain about the BNP being a bad party.

Call me Dave, Manchester (04/11/2007 at 15:28)

What people are not realising and what peole like Kurt are trying to hide is the potential massive impact this will have on peoples lives.
The scope to add to the congestion charge infrastructure (mission creep) is vast.

Leese's move shows how desparate he is getting, is utopian dream is dying because people want to drive cars not revisit a time when cars were to expensive for all but the wealthiest (and council officials).

()

Report

News