MPS are split over the congestion charge ballot, an exclusive M.E.N poll has revealed.
We contacted the 28 MPs who represent Greater Manchester constituencies and asked whether they would be voting in favour of plans to create charging zones in exchange for a massive investment in public transport.
Sixteen said they would vote yes, eight opposed it. Four did not reply.
While the majority of Labour members MPs - including local government secretary Hazel Blears and former transport secretary Ruth Kelly- said they would vote in favour of the government-backed plans, David Crausby, Jim Dobbin, Graham Stringer, Andrew Gwynne and Barbara Keeley all said they would reject them.
There were also split opinions among Liberal Democrats. Stockport MPs Mark Hunter and Andrew Stunell are against the plans but Withington's John Leech and Paul Rowen, MP for Rochdale, are supporters.
Graham Brady, the sole Tory MP in Greater Manchester, is opposed to the plan.
Jim Dobbin, a backbench MP for Heywood and Middleton, said: "This is not the best way to tackle congestion. I am all for investment in better trains, trams and buses but I think other ways can be found to do this."
Salford's Barbara Keeley added: "I don't believe it is in the best interests of my constituents."
But fellow backbencher, Bolton South East MP Brian Iddon said: "We desperately need a new station in Bolton. I wouldn't dream of taking my car to Manchester because of the amount you need to pay in parking. The charge wouldn't come in until 2013 and only after the changes have taken place, I don't think this has been emphasised enough."
Four MPs - government ministers Ivan Lewis and Phil Woolas, Sir Gerald Kaufman, and Michael Meacher - did not respond. A spokesman for Sir Gerald said that he 'does not answer surveys'.
The region's 10 councils are bidding for more than £2.75bn from the government's Transport Innovation Fund, including £318m to set up the peak hour, weekday charge. Within that total, £1.2bn would be a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.
Thousands of ballot papers have been sent out for the referendum on the issue. Voters will have two weeks to return their decision by post, with the result announced on December 12.
Click here to read coverage of the M.E.N debate
Vote No: MEN's Robert Ridley
Vote Yes: MEN's Maria McGeoghan
Click here to read the c-charge story so far.
Click here to read TIF documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Click here to read David Ottewell's politics blog
Tweet
MPs split over c-charge ballot
December 02, 2008
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Polky (02/12/2008 at 08:34)
johnnyboy, Ashton-u-Lyne, Lancashire (02/12/2008 at 08:53)
Mark,Radcliffe. (02/12/2008 at 09:01)
Al Capone of Atherton, Atherton (02/12/2008 at 09:42)
Dessie, Gorton (02/12/2008 at 09:53)
From Didsbury to Manchester City Centre how much quicker than the regular bus will it be?
In order to call it a 'fast rapid transit bus' trrials must have been carried out to prove that indeed it was 'fast and rapid'? When were the trials conducted and what were the comparisons to the regular bus?
Will it cost more than a regular bus?
I understand that it stops at fewer stops but if it uses the bus lane it will have to stop behind every regular bus that is stopped at regular bus stops so will it be constantly cutting in and out of the norma traffic lane? If it has to do this then it will take time to find a gap, pull back in, pull back out etc so will it really save time or is it no faster than a car because it will primarily be using the car lanes?
Ronky, Bowker Vale (02/12/2008 at 10:30)
So an MP doesn't think he has to tell his constituents his view on what is probably the biggest issue in Manchester since the IRA bomb last century.
When will MPs remember they are there to serve us and not the other way round?
Dave N, Hyde (02/12/2008 at 10:31)
That good and its even better that you have a choice - i dont give me the same choices you have and vote NO - How will voting yes improve your situation - in truth it wont - central manchester is well served by oublic transpoort so how much will it improve.
Its about choice for us all - noy for some
Phileas T Fogplatter, A-u-L Lancashire (02/12/2008 at 10:34)
Worry not, Rapid Transit is a GMPTA/E term used to describe when the bus is so packed there is no room for more. So it does not need to stop at every stop to take on more passengers.
Years ago there was a Number 6 service that ran from Lower Moseley Street to Glossop it only stoped at Fare Stages and would save you some time but there again, it was only half hourly and if you have to wait nearly as long - you might as well catch the sloooooooow bus.
pauly_paul, Swimming with donkeyss (02/12/2008 at 10:43)
The advance money for public transport improvments, the would lend it to Manchester if they couldn't make it back (unlike the banks!)
Audenshaw Bob (02/12/2008 at 10:44)
Isn't it a disgrace that in the city where Rolls Royce were formed and first produced we those who demonise cars as the mother of all evil?
John - sheikhing all over (02/12/2008 at 10:55)
oh, the congestion charge will reduce the number of cars in the city.
well if the number of cars are reduced , then the charge will generate less money.
hell of a catch 22 that is.
less cars means less money generated to continue to fund all these improvements.
i believe it's called
the point of an ever reducing return.
what is the council's "point of reduction" of cars before the charge runs at a loss ??
and it will then need to be increased,
resulting in even less cars.
so less money generated
round and around we go.
just curious before i vote.
alex preston (02/12/2008 at 11:04)
Vote Yes!
When you're with a SWP you're in glad Kompany, Bolton (02/12/2008 at 11:08)
John Davies (02/12/2008 at 11:08)
Sir Pentest 2 Vote 'NO', Newton Nr. Hyde. (02/12/2008 at 11:22)
They'll try to put a tax on any form of transport if they got their way with this, even walking.
Vote 'NO' you know it makes sense.
Red Amy (02/12/2008 at 11:30)
More like a two to one majority in favour!
Convinced (02/12/2008 at 11:43)
I can understand the concerns of some drivers - but this is about reducing congestion (the real pain for anyone who drives regularly at rush hour).
Add to that the public transport improvements comes first and it just makes good sense. We'd be mad to turn it all down.
polyglot (02/12/2008 at 11:47)
Bit disappointed at Meacher, though.
Audenshaw Bob (02/12/2008 at 11:47)
In terms of what? I've been to all of them and more but didn't come back saying 'brilliant buses, excellent trams, world class cities'.
I came back thinking that there streets were free of litter, a distinct lack of thugs roaming the streets (Las Ramblas in Barcelona being the exception), nice people and cheap food and drink and service with a smile. Anyway, Paris has some of the worst congestion in the world
.
How will a few more buses and trams turn the Beetham Tower into teh Eiffel Tower, the wall in Piccadilly Garnes into the Berlin Wall, the Albert Statue into the mermaid on the rock etc?
When you think of this utopia do you see warm weather, clear blue skies, pavement cafes, people hopping on and off trams that have seats aplenty, children running around with smiling faces, empty roads etc?
Or do you see what I see which is people stood freezing cold getting soaked at smashed up bus shelters or tiny metro platforms taking longer to get to work, being squashed like sardines, suffering loud music palyed on mobiles, teenagers swearing and acting in a yobbish manner all whilst ankle deep in someone elses litter on a vandalised tram/bus?
Phileas T Fogplatter, A-u-L Lancashire (02/12/2008 at 11:49)
"We'd be mad to turn it all down."
Bit like the banks were when people wanted 125% mortages with no proof of income?
Dazmad, Manchester (02/12/2008 at 11:57)
If the Tories would have introduced this toll tax there would be uproar and marches just like there was with the poll tax, but wait Labour are introducing this so it must be ok!
This toll tax will turn Manchester into a ghost town and will fail in spectacular style.
Lets not forget this is the government that has paid out £1 billion in family tax credits incorrectly and nothing was said because that was Gordon's mistake. £1 billion could have paid for 8 hospitals and this congestion charge.
I would like to know who is paying for the Yes campaign, thst's right you and me and would that money spent on advertising be better spent on our under funded public services?
It's a complete joke just luike this Government. Why did Birmingham and Edinburgh reject it? Because it was such a brilliant idea? No, because they could see it would kill their local economies and is an unfair unjust and illegal tax!
Shame on Manchester for being such a soft touch.
Red Amy (02/12/2008 at 12:02)
Mark,Radcliffe. (02/12/2008 at 12:03)
Dave N, Hyde (02/12/2008 at 12:05)
Vote Yes!
alex preston
2/12/2008 at 11:04
Alex
Are you saying that there is a congestion charge in Barcelona? - can you provide any evidence for this because i dont think there is? oh and yes public transport is cheap in Barcelona so it can be done - do you care about posting facts or is any old rubbish sufficient - you are making a fool of yourself
Dave N, Hyde (02/12/2008 at 12:13)
I can understand the concerns of some drivers - but this is about reducing congestion (the real pain for anyone who drives regularly at rush hour).
Add to that the public transport improvements comes first and it just makes good sense. We'd be mad to turn it all down.
Convinced
2/12/2008 at 11:43
But it wont if 80% off all car journeys are not charged that leaves only 20% and many of those like myself have no option but to use a car - what is more likely to happen is that drivers drive outside the C chrge times reducing the income generated by the scheme leaving the council 2 option - siden the scheme or reduce the level of public transport - which one do you think will happen