GORDON Brown was urged to scrap Greater Manchester's controversial congestion charge scheme during Prime Minister questions.
Blackley MP Graham Stringer, a former city council leader, protested about the wording of the question in a referendum on the pay-as-you-go scheme.
People will simply be asked in the poll whether they agree with the proposals. The referendum question does not make a direct mention of the charge or the transport improvements of almost £3billion it would unlock.
Mr Stringer said that MPs were calling for a fair and unbiased question in the referendum on the congestion charge in Greater Manchester.
"What we're getting is a partial and biased question which doesn't even mention the congestion charge," said Mr Stringer.
"Wouldn't it be better Prime Minister, given the current economic circumstances, if this unnecessary congestion charge is cancelled, and the divisive referendum is cancelled and we brought forward the investment in the tram system in Greater Manchester to an early date?" asked the MP.
Mr Brown said he was aware there were strong views about the issue.
"But the question in the referendum had to be approved legally and that's what happened," said Mr Brown.
Voting papers for the referendum are planned to go out at the end of next month with a closing date for votes of December 11.
Next Monday MPs will debate the issue, as part of a discussion on the Local Transport Bill, when Tories will seek to make the results of the referendum binding on all 10 local authorities.
The question was drawn up by independent election expert Sir Neil McIntosh.
It includes a 'preamble' - which does mention both the charge and the £3bn of investment it would unlock - before simply asking people if they support the proposal or not.
Sir Neil said: "I regret the continuing suggestion in some quarters that the question is biased because it does not mention the congestion charge.
"The wording on the ballot paper quite clearly mentions the congestion charge twice, just at it mentions the proposed investment in public transport twice. The question is immediately below this summary of the key issues of the Transport Innovation Fund proposals and is meant to be read in conjunction with it.
"This approach, using a preamble summary of a complex issue in combination with a simple, linked question is in accord with Electoral Commission guidelines."
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Jay B, oldham (22/10/2008 at 15:05)
because if you let it carry on then you will see yet another defeat like the recent by-elections that you've had and then the only other defeat will come in the general election.
enough is enough!
Man made Climate Change is NONSENSE, Cheadle Hulme (22/10/2008 at 15:08)
Emjay See (22/10/2008 at 15:08)
dessie, manchester (22/10/2008 at 15:30)
Mark,Radcliffe. (22/10/2008 at 15:48)
AngusDangus (22/10/2008 at 16:40)
City Centre Man (22/10/2008 at 16:48)
'But the question in the referendum had to be approved legally and that's what happened'
So that OK then, the question is lega. That gives great assurance as I doubt there are many question that would be illegal. The pro lot have come up with the question, ran it by their lawyers and here we are. It doesn't mean it's a fair question.
It's like Ireland voted against the European thing and the PM of Ireland said 'maybe we need to reword the question and vote again'. No. They voted No no matter how you dress it up! If they had voted Yes would he have wanted a revote?
It's the same with the anti monarchy brigade in Australia. For years they have been asking for a referendum and they eventually got one and the majority voted to keep the monarchy so their answer was that the public didn't understand the question so let's revote. In other words lets keep revoting until they get the answer the want and that's it - no more votes.
L L Fontelroy (22/10/2008 at 16:49)
Chess Piece Face, Manchester (22/10/2008 at 17:14)
Banana Boy (22/10/2008 at 17:15)
Over a FULL MONTHS salary so I can continue to drive to work and contribute to the economy known as broken britain.
DISGUSTING
C CHARGE OFF WITH ITS HEAD VOTE NO!
FrancisH (22/10/2008 at 17:20)
Chris Green, Chorlton-cum-Hardy (22/10/2008 at 17:21)
Rammylad (22/10/2008 at 17:32)
Are the tories looking to make all 10 councils accept the result even if only 7 say accept the proposals?
or,
Are the tories insisting all 10 councils must return a yes for the con charge to go ahead?
Henry Piggot-Smythe, Prestbury (22/10/2008 at 18:01)
Peter Roberts, Telford (22/10/2008 at 18:19)
So far, this one is 7 against and 1 for.
Thats:
86% NO
14% YES
Seems pretty accurate.
Cllr Ken Hulme, Delph (22/10/2008 at 20:56)
He's dropped the ridiculous 42 day detention proposals so come on lets see an end to the congestion charge, road pricing, identity cards, post office closures and lets save a cool £25 Billion by scrapping the replacement for Trident.
Save ££££ Billions on unpopular and unworkable schemes - there would be plenty left over to fund a better transport system in Manchester and the North - even after the bankers have had their snouts in the trough !
Save money and win votes !
Come on Gordon you know it makes sense !!
youth of today (22/10/2008 at 22:02)
The ballot paper sets out, very clearly, the proposals AND the congestion charge. It then asks people whether they agree or not. Does he really think that the people of GM are so stupid that they will not understand that the information directly before the question relates to the question itself?
All this is doing is getting people worked up about nothing. I've had to explain to at least half a dozen people in the last few days that the ballot paper WILL mention the congestion charge and the transport improvements. Graham Stringer is being very misleading on this occasion and it's really not helpful.
S P In exile, Tameside (23/10/2008 at 02:02)
As in everything else Brown and this government has done over the years when the electorate have been hoodwinked i.e. EU referendum, the human rights bill I don’t think the electorate voted for that to be law in this country. Devolution who would of thought that every country in the British Isles apart from England would have free prescriptions, free universities, free elderly home care all paid for by the English taxpayer.
This country was led into a war that was built on lies. Provided our servicemen to fight that war with inferior equipment. Money didn’t seem to be a problem with the new London Crossrail at a cost of £16 billion and money didn’t seem to be a problem with Jubilee Line Extension at a cost of £ 3.2 billion, but military personnel is judged by this government as expendable.
When we won all those gold medals in China at the Olympics Brown was there to welcome every athlete back in Browns eyes heroes, good PR. When that plane lands at Brize Norton bringing our fallen soldiers home never ever has anyone from the government been there to honour these real brave heroes.
Voting yes to this unjust tax will be bad day for business and jobs the last thing we need to lose is more jobs going into a recession.
As pointed out above London got their money without a surtax so why is it we have to pay a tax, is it because they think in Whitehall that we all wear flat caps and keep ferrets up in north and don’t know any better.
AlexisV (23/10/2008 at 10:46)
Brown is ducking out of this one and letting MCC take any flak.
Sally Brompty (23/10/2008 at 10:53)
End of story
Sick of this Government, MADchester (23/10/2008 at 13:48)
(Taking a line from the legendary Ace), unless they are voting like sheep.
citycentre, manchester (23/10/2008 at 15:13)
£2530 to drive to work? I'd be better on the DOLE!!! - Paul Teeque (23/10/2008 at 16:29)
LOL! hilarious! Love it Henry ;- >
MsD, Manchester (23/10/2008 at 17:24)
Emjay See (23/10/2008 at 17:28)
and Leeds
and Liverpool
and Birmingham