A COUNCIL could be forced to have a directly-elected mayor in a row over congestion charging.
Campaigners in Bury believe voting a mayor into power in support of their views would be their best chance of killing off any pay-as-you-drive plans in the town.
And they have now handed a 9,000-signature petition to Bury town hall - enough to trigger a referendum on the issue.
Government rules mean there must be a referendum if five per cent of electors petition for an elected mayor.
Members of Bury council say the process is a `waste of taxpayers' money' as they have already opposed charging plans.
pRESSURE
But members of pressure group Manchester Against Road Tolls don't want to leave anything to chance and believe an elected mayor backing their views could see off charging plans for good.
Campaigner Geoffrey Berg said: "Under the Local Government Act 2000, we can force the style of administration.
"If five per cent of the residents sign a petition, there will be a referendum on whether to have an elected mayor, as opposed to a council leader and an annually-rotating mayor.
"That person would have the power to get rid of the congestion charging scheme."
The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities is putting a bid to the government's Transport Innovation Fund.
If successful, Manchester would get £3bn for public transport,
but 60 per cent would have to be paid back through a charge of up to £5 a day for drivers to travel selected routes around the city.
The
plans suffered a blow last month when Bury became the third council to withdraw support for the scheme. Councillors said they would be against the bid if charges were included and called for a Greater Manchester-wide referendum.
The current TIF bid could collapse if just one more town hall changes its mind, because there must be at least a two-thirds majority among councils for it to go ahead. If another council breaks ranks, the bid could only go ahead if there was a public vote in favour in a Manchester-wide referendum.
Bury council leader, Conservative councillor Bob Bibby, said: "Given the council's clear position that we are against congestion charging, this move is pointless. The installation of an elected mayor, with the same powers as the current leader, is a waste of taxpayers' money.
"That, on top of the cost of the referendum, will take large sums of money out of much more deserving budgets."
What do you think? Have your say.
Tweet
C-charge: Petition to elect mayor
January 04, 2008
Geoffrey Berg, Stuart Chapman and Steve Evans hand in the petition
Showing comments 1 to 20 and replies | View All
shayla (04/01/2008 at 07:59)
BUT:-
1/ It is a small sacrifice compared to what congestion charging is going to cost us.
2/ It's very little compared to what's already been spent on the consultations that did take place only for them to ignore being told we don't want it - now that's a pointless waste of money.
IT'S CALLED PEOPLE POWER - IT'S OUR MONEY AND OUR LIVES.
SUPPORT YOUR VOTERS, OR BE GIVEN THE BOOT!
GIVE IT UP - WHO'S NEXT !
polkyb (04/01/2008 at 08:01)
I think they were hoping that if they dropped support for the CON-charge, MART would drop the petition... Leaving them clear to re-join the pro charge brigade at some future date, against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
Maybe I'm being too cynical... Or maybe I know how councillors work.
Let’s get the Tameside petition up to speed and then we can see this hair brained scheme off.
Snare Drum (Manchester Against Road Tolls), Ashton-under-Lyne (04/01/2008 at 10:09)
Meanwhile the cost of fuel is going through the roof, and that is another issue that is going to hit the fan. Heating fuel costs are also going up in big jumps, but are our wages? are they hell. This government is driving all low earners into the gutter and telling disabled to go get a job, they won't be able to afford to go to work if this CON charge comes in, along with all the other price hikes.
Andy., Bury (04/01/2008 at 11:08)
Could they keep their fingers out of the administration of our borough please?
PS. Is it me or, from your picture, is there a touch of League of Gentleman about Mr. Berg? A local mayor for local people :-)
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (04/01/2008 at 11:15)
Black Sabbath (04/01/2008 at 11:43)
By all means hit Tameside but why hit Bury when they are in the NO camp?
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (04/01/2008 at 12:24)
they where for the C-Charge
then the elections came and they were suddenly against it.
then at the AGMA vote, they changed again and voted infavour of it.
Now they are against, but for how long, till after the May08 local elections?
Snare Drum (Manchester Against Road Tolls), Ashton-under-Lyne (04/01/2008 at 17:12)
Answer: The petition, and that is why Bury changed tack for the third time.
They are running scared because the electorate are gaining momentum. The petition clearly stated what it was about and that it was to force a referendum on there being a directly elected mayor put into power. If MART were to back down now, they would be going back on what they promised 9000 signatories they were going to do.
Laura Norder, Didsbury (04/01/2008 at 19:17)
I have scanned and enlarged the MEN picture of the 'Bury Three' and mounted it above my fireplace... that should keep the children away from the fire.
What attractive attributes with endearing social priciples they share.
Black Sabbath (04/01/2008 at 20:53)
I think you are taking a big gamble with this - if it does not come off you have shot your bolt - other councils will no longer be running scared and will lose the campaign.
Think about it! To coin an old Rugby League phrase:
'All you can see is the whitewash, look for the easy pass for a try!'
A Gilbert (05/01/2008 at 10:49)
Time to pull the rug from under Manchester City Council who are at the centre of the proposals and the rest will then fall.
I as a Manchester resident would be happy to sign a petition for an elected mayor who would stand against the c-charge.
James, Lancashire (05/01/2008 at 20:11)
But hang on a minute - Bury is already opposed to congestion charging. So 'angry taxpayers' of MART et al would have us waste thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on something which won't do a thing to affect the cause they're so passionate about. And besides, by the time this hair-brained scheme had run it's course, the congestion charge would probably be up and running anyway.
For the life of me, I can't understand why they didn't just have a petiton calling for a referendum against the charge. Surely that would be a far easier and cheaper means of reaching a scrapping of the charge?
Oh well, I suppose it's unfair to expect logic from the motorist's lobby.
In the know (06/01/2008 at 13:31)
The public have been calling for a referendum on the subject since the whole stupid idea was first thought of. The whole point of the petition was to get one but Bury Council wouldn’t go down that route.
And there will not be any because the people who are pushing this thing through know the result of it before it even takes place.
9000 people signed the petition, meaning all those people and more are against the scheme within the Bury area. Many more thousands have already signed petitions on the subject in other areas. The fight against this scheme is growing and yet those in power don’t want to here.
The only way forward is to remove them from power.
Well done Mart, your time and effort put into this is very much appreciated.
paul teeque (08/01/2008 at 15:14)
Ah but what about the £000 wasted on the TIF bid already! which was unfairly forced through? At least this is honest money to honestly ask the real people!
Well done MART!
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (08/01/2008 at 16:04)
Paul, that is what they spent.
paul teeque (08/01/2008 at 17:14)
"much more deserving budgets"
How is forcing in a tax no one wants - decrease road space - and billing manchester drivers £2080 a year - A DESERVING BUDGET I ask?
Chris, Irlam (09/01/2008 at 09:18)
To quote, "They do like like it up 'em!".
paul teeque (09/01/2008 at 10:42)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (09/01/2008 at 12:34)
you need the correct legal wording and the 5 perecent of the electorate plus a saftty margin.
paul teeque (09/01/2008 at 15:46)