ANTI-congestion charge adverts are to be shown on a giant screen - in the shadow of Greater Manchester's passenger transport headquarters.
The ads, which feature the 'no' campaign's shark mascot, claim motorists could pay up to £1,200 a year unless they 'vote NO and stop the charge'.
The screen in Piccadilly is just a stone's throw from the offices of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, which played a key role in drawing up the region's bid to the government's Transport Innovation Fund.
Now Peel Advertising, part of anti-TIF business giants Peel Holdings, have paid for the rights to sell advertising on the screen.
A spokesman for the official `yes' campaign said the planned advertising `trivialised the issue' and `patronised the people of Greater Manchester'.
He said: "I don't believe that information about important proposals for the future of Greater Manchester is best conveyed by a man dressed as a fish."
News of the planned advertising campaign has ramped up talk of a 'dirty war'.
Last month, the pro-TIF Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign held a 'commute challenge'. The idea was to prove the bike and train were quicker than driving.
The starting point chosen for the race was outside the house of Peel Holdings boss Andrew Simpson.
GMCC said the reason for the start-point was that it was a `very typical suburban location'.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Beaufort (07/10/2008 at 07:19)
Oh really? But it's OK to use American actors and saying that this is 'Jim from Bury' or using an ex Coronation Street actor and staging a traffic jam for the cameras, That's OK is it?
PW, Manchester (07/10/2008 at 08:20)
But it's ok to spend public money on their own propaganda campaign.
Rt Hon Dr Rev MC Spanner MP QC FCA FRICS JP OK (07/10/2008 at 08:41)
MAG is supporting the TIF and is party of United City which is funding the yes campaign.
MADL which is part of MAG is advertising property near the airport. One of the key benefits in it's advert is.....wait for it...drum roll please....IT IS OUTSIDE THE CONGESTION CHARGING ZONE. A key benefit.
Now how can that be a benefit. Surely not. If it is then why is MAG wanting to charge us poor workers to drive into it. Unless they believe by supporting charging it will drive business out to their empty office space.
Jay B, oldham (07/10/2008 at 09:01)
Mark,Radcliffe. (07/10/2008 at 09:11)
Mark,Radcliffe. (07/10/2008 at 10:25)
Jay B, oldham (07/10/2008 at 10:44)
its ok getting so called real people to pose for a phote and quote them on how they wont pay the charge directly.
but when the cost of living in manchester goes up because of these costs being passed to the customer then they will be paying.
if you live in greater manchester you will pay.
a con charge will restrict your choice of moving freely around manchester.
EVERYONE PAYS!
Munkey Boy (07/10/2008 at 10:59)
Not everything in the world is black and white, it's all shades of grey, management and refinement, trends and policies. You get what you pay for.
Jay B, oldham (07/10/2008 at 11:19)
after all i've paid for it so i will expect to get it.
£2600 to drive to work? I'd be better on the DOLE!!! - Paul Teeque (07/10/2008 at 11:22)
Mark,Radcliffe. (07/10/2008 at 11:28)
Rt Hon Dr Rev MC Spanner MP QC FCA FRICS JP OK (07/10/2008 at 11:45)
It's amazing what you read when taking a visit to the water closet. It was in insider magazine. Made me chuckle!!!
AlexisV (07/10/2008 at 12:03)
It's just an ad against the con charge - but the main thing is that it's opposite GMPTE - fantastic!
Pentest 2, Hyde (07/10/2008 at 12:19)
I and the 'majority' No Voters are getting rather fed up with the Pro Charge advertising muck and propaganda.
Its quite obvious they don't like their own medicine in the form of a counter advert campaign.
Ha Ha!
irrelevant, Salford (07/10/2008 at 13:56)
So of course the pro-charge adverts appear on bus shelters where they extole the virtues of better public transport, knowing that most readers won't give a monkey's about drivers being charged.
Talk about targetted advertising..
Esso Blue, Oil incorporated, Manchester (07/10/2008 at 15:14)
The Shark is a prime example of what the pro lobbyists are, trying to feed off the public, there is no need for the charge they get enough money from road tax, Manchester is nowhere near the population of london to justify a charge.
If you prove the bike and train are faster than a car that doesn't prove the charge is justified, we might as well talk about what came first the chicken or the egg it’s irrelevant.
as long as the system is ticking over and people are in work on time. If anything just cut the amount of cars on the road, no we can’t do that the public are the mugs OK.
PW, Manchester (07/10/2008 at 16:08)
I would rather hear that from a London car commuter Munkey Boy. From all accounts, all they get is the privilege of paying good money to drive about on roads that were once adequately maintained by local councils via excise duty. London is still congested, but road-users have distinctly leaky pockets and wallets. Not here, thanks.
Karen Bruce (07/10/2008 at 16:28)
Jay B, oldham (07/10/2008 at 16:34)
"Last month, the pro-TIF Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign held a 'commute challenge'. The idea was to prove the bike and train were quicker than driving"
Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign are not pro TIF.
this event was held in previous years just to highlight which commutes where better than others.
it had nothing at all to do with trying to Big up the TIF.
Cyclists will gain nothing from the TIF.
the roads wont become empty overnight.
so please correct the story.
Munkey Boy (07/10/2008 at 16:52)
Quid pro quo: you're paying for less congestion.
PW, Manchester (08/10/2008 at 08:07)
BillyJ (08/10/2008 at 08:47)
Jomov (08/10/2008 at 09:37)
Fran M (Permissum Populus Constituo) (08/10/2008 at 10:22)
Munkey Boy,
Please supply your evidence to support this statement, if there is any, which I doubt.
Or are you just indulging in hyperbole.
Munkey Boy (08/10/2008 at 12:00)
Didn't think so.