THE decision over whether Manchester should introduce congestion charging is balanced on a knife edge.
That was the verdict of key figures on both sides of the issue after 250 people attended the South Manchester Reporter’s debate on the crucial issue.
Debaters crammed into an auditorium at Parrs Wood High School in Didsbury to give their views on the proposals and grill representatives from the Yes and No campaigns, as well as key local political figures.
The debate was held just days before residents across the conurbation take part in a referendum over the controversial issue.
In a survey of those present, just over 50 per cent said that they would vote against the congestion charging proposals, with 46.5 per cent voting in favour, while just over three per cent were undecided. Around 160 people took part in the show of hands.
BBC North West’s former political editor Jim Hancock, who chaired the debate, said: "The vote was very tight. It shows the referendum is still all to play for and it’s clear that it could go either way."
Sitting on the panel were Andrew Simpson, of the Greater Manchester Momentum Group, which is opposing the plans, and Lis Phelan, chairman of the Yes Campaign. The main local political groups were represented by Councillor Simon Ashley (Liberal Democrats), Lucy Powell (Labour), Coun Faraz Bhatti (Conservatives) and Brian Candeland (Greens).
Next week residents in Greater Manchester will start voting on whether to adopt a congestion charging scheme that would see £2.75bn injected into public transport.
If the plans get the go ahead motorists would be charged up to £5 per day - at today’s prices - for crossing the charging rings of the M60 and an inner boundary. Charges would apply at peak times into and out of Manchester city centre.
It will cost £318m to set up a peak hour, weekday-only congestion charge.
Some £1.2bn of the £2.75bn total would be in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.
It would also see the expansion of the Metrolink tram network to many locations across south Manchester and other parts of Greater Manchester. For the bid to get the go ahead, a majority ‘yes’ vote must be achieved in at least seven of the ten councils.
Reporter editor Lawrence Matheson said: "This is one of the biggest decisions that Manchester will ever make.
"We wanted to give our readers the chance to make the best-informed decision possible by allowing them to have their say and to grill some of the most influential figures in this debate."
Mr Matheson added: "It was a fascinating debate and the excellent turn-out shows just how passionate people are about this important issue."
Andrew Simpson of the Greater Manchester Momentum Group – which is against the proposals – said: "The vote was narrow, but it shows that more people are still voting against the proposals than for them.
"People have listened to the facts, and the figures from the debate show that more people are against the charge than for it."
Lis Phelan, chairman of the Yes campaign, acknowledged that the voting figures were close, but said she hoped they would not reflect the final outcome at the final referendum.
She added: "I think having this kind of debate was long overdue.
"The vote was close, however I’m not sure how accurate a reflection it was of what will happen at the referendum. You do tend to find people who are passionately against the proposals are more likely to turn up than those who are going to vote yes."
The other members of the panel also welcomed the chance to discuss the proposals in depth.
Labour’s Lucy Powell said: "It was a very narrow result after a really good debate. But I do hope that people vote in favour of these plans because it is a once in a lifetime opportunity."
Lib Dem leader Simon Ashley said: "It was an interesting debate and an extremely close vote.
'It isn’t a perfect deal, but the important thing is that people do use their vote."
Brian Candeland of the Manchester Green Party said: "It was a very lively debate and a fantastic testament to democracy that a lot of people were very vocal. It’s helpful to the people to hear what other people say and hopefully they’ll be better informed."
Coun Bhatti said: "The vote was pretty close, but it’s clear to see that a large number of people are passionately against the congestion charge.
"I am pretty optimistic that people will be voting the congestion charge down."



Showing comments 1 to 6 and replies | View All
Chris Green, Chorlton-cum-Hardy (14/11/2008 at 16:25)
It was highlighted that Manchester does have serious problems with congestion but it was disappointing that this one offer is claimed to be the only one that the people of Greater Manchester can have. In reality, the next government, of either colour, will address this problem and will invest in the city's infrastructure.
There is no need to lumber ourselves with a £1.2Bn thirty year mortgage when we can wait until after the next general election and get a better deal.
P.S. Mention was made about the heavy traffic outside the venue and that it may justify the congestion charge. This level of congestion was due to an accident on the A34.
Groucho F (16/11/2008 at 11:43)
In reality this is yet another stealth tax....I'm voting against...even though I won't have to pay a penny of the congestion charge.
Simon Pargiter (21/11/2008 at 18:00)
Rob Shaw (24/11/2008 at 11:49)
This is a direct tax on freedom of movement and freedom of choice.
If it wasn't for Darling and Prescott Manchester would have had this money anyway, the best advice is like the previous poster advised, say no and wait till the next election when we will have a new government and a huge cull of labour MPs.
It would be physically impossible to get a worse deal.
The Stockholm model proves conclusively that congestion charging is only a short term solution.
After short term reductions in congestion the traffic slowly builds up again, and so the charge will have to be continually increased.
This is precisely what will happen in Manchester. Do NOT fall for it.
If you are a motorist you will slowly but surely be taxed off the road.
Also how can an inner ring road be defined as "inner" when it basically runs through the middle of the suburbs!!
I honestly believe the populations of Greater Manchester have no idea what they are letting themselves in for.
Obviously everyone wants improvements in shiny new public transport, but at what price and can we even trust them with our money?
Poor old John Leech for the Lib Dems is obviously completely and totally hamstrung.
He makes it crystal clear in his articles that he doesnt support the congestion charge, is utterly appalled at the mistreatment of Manchester, yet at the end of his article he resignedly states.
"but if this is the only way we can get the money (which it obviously is) then i have to vote yes!!!"
For the first time ever he even seems to be quoting Lucy Powell!!
What a sad indictment on life in Britain under New Labour.
R.Shaw, East Didsbury
Giles Johnson (28/11/2008 at 10:40)
Your correspondents claim that the C-charge is an unfair tax on motorists. This is true. So is excise duty on cigarettes, but the UK has one of the highest cigarette taxes in Europe and one of the lowest rates of smoking. The aim of the congestion charge is to change behaviour. People will not take public transport unless it is in their interests. At present it is cheaper for me to take my family to town by car and pay for the parking than it is to take the bus, so of course I drive. Congestion charging will not solve the problem of the polluted congested city but it will help shift the balance.
Giles Johnson
Chorlton-cum-Hardy
Manuchehr Sanadjian (17/12/2008 at 13:23)
Pam & Manuchehr Sanadjian