A SENIOR Labour backbencher has said it would be 'bonkers' to have a congestion charge in Greater Manchester.
Graham Stringer, MP for Manchester Blackley, spoke out during a debate on the Local Transport Bill in the Commons.
He claimed plans for a congestion charge of up to £5 a day had been shrouded in secrecy and said consultation on the scheme had been 'a sham'.
Mr Stringer, right, also warned that the bill, likely to become law later this year, would strip individual councils of their right to veto congestion charge plans.
His outburst came as transport minister Rosie Winterton refused to back calls for local referendums to be made a legal requirement before congestion charging is introduced.
Mr Stringer claimed the government wanted `to look at Manchester as an experiment in congestion charging, after withdrawing support for a national road-pricing scheme'.
"For my government and for my party in control of four local authorities in Greater Manchester, to introduce a tax now on top of other taxes is, quite frankly, bonkers," he said.
Greater Manchester's 10 councils have submitted a joint bid for a congestion charge in return for £3bn of investment in public transport. They are likely to hear later this month whether they have been successful.
Councils
The bid has proved hugely divisive and three councils - Tory-run Trafford and Bury, and Lib Dem-held Stockport - have withdrawn their support.
Mr Stringer said the case that had been made for a congestion charge in Greater Manchester was `very dodgy'.
"When the Manchester bid was put in, the consultation was a sham," he said. "The bids so far have not been transparent. When I put Freedom of Information requests to the Department for Transport to find out what the correspondence between the Greater Manchester authorities and the DfT has been, I was told it was commercially sensitive.
"How is it commercially sensitive? People have a right to know."
Currently, Greater Manchester's 10 councils have agreed a voting system that means if at least seven councils give their blessing, the congestion charge bid would be introduced across the region.
But that is a convention rather than a legally-binding rule - and there is nothing stopping Trafford, Bury and Stockport refusing to co-operate.
Check out
our interactive traffic map.
Tweet
Congestion charge bid 'bonkers'
May 12, 2008
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Voter (12/05/2008 at 06:58)
Sean Corker MART, Manchester (12/05/2008 at 07:56)
PW, Manchester (12/05/2008 at 08:27)
We as the public do need to know the projected figure information. How is a charge that is allegedly meant to curb demand, going to fund the expensive administration and pay the loan back? If the Con Charge works in the way they say it's meant to work (reducing congestion), then financial gains will diminish, and we're stuck with all that equipment and set-up. I see bus and tram fares going up from all this. Who knows? There's always the Council Tax which would go up under some other guise.
We all know what happens to prices when an industry has a captive market, with little choice. You drive on the road, and you get fleeced, so you catch a bus and get fleeced.
This Administration is nothing but a leech, sucking on our blood, and that's why New Labour is fast losing popularity. But if they want to go ahead, the public will get the final say. There's a certain box they won't tick.
But you can't dissuade lemmings when they're all fired-up and determined to throw themselves over that cliff!
Chris, Irlam (12/05/2008 at 08:32)
Roger Jones's P45 (formerly MC Spanner) (12/05/2008 at 09:31)
Does that not just say it all. A "Tax" is commercially sensitive. Does this mean the government have already promised work to the likes of IBM or Capita to run the scheme.
I think the maybe Bury,Stockport & Trafford should refuse to have charging in their boroughs. That sounds like an excellent solution.
Laura Norder, Didsbury (12/05/2008 at 10:22)
The C-charge will be good for the city - deal with it.
dessie, manchester (12/05/2008 at 10:31)
Chris, Irlam (12/05/2008 at 10:45)
PW, Manchester (12/05/2008 at 10:46)
Pete in Salford, Salford (12/05/2008 at 10:55)
Pentest (12/05/2008 at 11:16)
paul teeque (12/05/2008 at 11:21)
It will kill Manchester, people will move out, shops will close, large businesses will fold. For the average Manchester driver - £2080 a YEAR is TOO much on top of already ridiculous taxes on living.
How will it get paid off when people stop using their cars as per the congestion charges whole premise?
Any one with a bit of common sense can see the con-charge and manchester is one huge scam.
MsD, Manchester (12/05/2008 at 11:31)
Frostee, Oldham (12/05/2008 at 11:37)
And now they want to slam £5 a day on top of all this just for the privilege of driving into Manchester. What a joke!
Of course all the councillors and MP's will simply claim back the congestion charge in their never ending expenses claims.
I'm beginning to believe that something drastic, a major revolt of working people, perhaps like the last fuel protest, will happen soon. Working people cannot keep being screwed like this.
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (12/05/2008 at 11:41)
- much improved public transport
- less congestion in the peak periods.
Contrary to popular belief from the posters here, it's the lowest paid that would benefit most from greatly improved public transport.
I'm yet to be convinced that anyone who would *have to*:
- cross all 4 of the cordons
- at the right times of day
- every day
- in a car
- that has no public transport option (not even to park & ride)
couldn't afford it.
Roger Jones's P45 (formerly MC Spanner) (12/05/2008 at 11:49)
"The threat of the first national rail strike for 14 years, which would cripple train services across Britain, was raised today when the industry's biggest union announced it was balloting 17,000 workers for industrial action."
Another reason to stay in your car. Boris tried to get a no-strike deal in return for independent pay reviews in London. All you Union could do was make a cheap joke about Liverpool before turning their noses up.
There should be no Con Charge anyway but if it happens and the public decide through ballot that they do - a no strike deal is imperative. Petty little communists like Bob Crow should not decide whether I can go to work whilsts arguing about 0.1%.
Fran M, Stockport (12/05/2008 at 12:26)
"- cross all 4 of the cordons - at the right times of day - every day - in a car - that has no public transport option (not even to park & ride)"
It is a pretty Stalinist view of the world that says you must use PT otherwise you will squeezed 'till the pips squeak as one former Labour chancellor put it. Except this time it won't be the rich that will be getting squeezed. You will do as you are told by the animals that are more equal.
rammylad, ramsbottom (12/05/2008 at 13:20)
2006 MEN Arena 12 hour ticket £6, 2008 12 hour ticket £9. FACT, this is not a saving. The NCP guy had the ordasity to say they have worked to reward those who park on the edge of town. Well I now travel further into town and pays less than half the £9 cost. What a muppet. But will the MEN stnad up to him and check the facts. Nah.... That would involve work.
paul teeque (12/05/2008 at 13:21)
Fran very wise words indeed ;- >
Graham Stringer for Prime Minister I SAY - YAY YAY
Kurt Stephens, Sale (12/05/2008 at 14:05)
If only he was leading the Labour party instead of Brown they'd be doing an awful lot better.
The campaign for Stringer to be PM starts here.
Stringer for PM.
Tig, Manchester (12/05/2008 at 15:06)
For example:
Go under the m60 in order to get on it in the desired direction – charge 1.
M60 slip road on – charge 2.
M60 slip road off – charge 3
Main road at other end – charge 4.
Asda on way home – charge 5.
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (12/05/2008 at 15:20)
Simple economics dictates that it's only a matter of time before market forces (supply and demand) come to bear on the roads - peak travel on the train is already more expensive than off-peak, why shouldn't roads be?
Does your equality for all philosophy apply to anything else, or just the things *you* want to use?
Fran M, Stockport (12/05/2008 at 15:46)
Roger Jones's P45 (formerly MC Spanner) (12/05/2008 at 16:02)
Simple politics state it's only a matter of time before this charge gets kicked out by the electorate.....Look at Edinburgh
Even simpler economics says it doesn't work. Look at London.
GCSE Economics states employers in Manchester will relocate when they cannot employ staff leaving thousands of Mancunians without jobs. Look in the mirror
Alan Kelly (12/05/2008 at 16:04)
It is clear that the mathematics don’t add up. It is clear that the requirement for congestion is necessary for the loan to be repaid. It is clear that the London model for congestion charge has been so unpopular and so worthless in creating revenue that even the most biased economist realises that it is financially unsound.
You want the car driving public to support your inefficient, outdated, hyper-polluting, unsafe, unreliable public transport system. So as long as you’re alright, the rest of us can go to hell.