Will
The congestion charge will be a disaster for Manchester. Chair of Manchester Conservative Future, Will Palmer, says that it is the poor who will suffer most.
Like most major cities, Manchester has too much congestion. Most cities have not, however, proposed or implemented a congestion charge. So, by following in the footsteps of London, is Manchester going to be a world leader in traffic management and the fight against climate change? I don’t think so. This is not just any congestion charge: Manchester’s congestion-charging “ring” will be the largest in the world. 12 times the size of that of London when it was first set up. The plans rely on a loan that we will struggle to pay back, so it will hurt the low paid and it will damage business and jobs. These are just a few of the reasons that make the proposed congestion charge a bad idea and why we should vote “NO”.
What makes this project completely unworkable is the illogical way in which it will be financed. Part of the £3 billion investment comes in the form of a £1.2 billion loan, which will be paid back over 30 years using revenues from the congestion charge. This project has nothing to do with reducing congestion or tackling climate change, because the whole project relies on congestion. London’s congestion charge, which is more expensive and has longer charging times, only makes its money from imposing fines. If the charge does not cover the cost of the loan repayments, then the only alternative the council will have is to increase council tax, the charging times and or the charge itself. The follies of excessive borrowing should be clear to everyone now but Manchester’s Labour council appears to heed those warnings as little as our Labour government does. At a recent debate it was mentioned, in a rather populist fashion, that it would be “the rich” that pay the congestion charge and not the poor who use public transport. Well, for a start, we are no longer in the 1920s and many people on extremely modest budgets own and rely on cars to get to work.
Also, those who are better off have a much better chance of avoiding the charge. Usually if someone is highly paid, there is a much higher chance that they will own their own business or work in senior management. They are the people who are much more likely to have the prerogative to decide when they go to work. We are told the congestion charging times are to be limited to the rush hour. However, if I work in a call centre and my shift starts at 9am, then I must start at 9am. I do not have the authority to decide when I go to work, therefore I will be forced to pay the congestion charge. So the better-off have a better chance of avoiding this charge, while those of us who are told when we must arrive at work are made even worse off. One argument that I struggle to understand about the benefits of the congestion charge is that it will be better for the city’s businesses. Manchester is not London. London is a financial and cultural capital, which competes with New York and Tokyo, while Manchester is merely a regional capital. With its close proximity to other great cities like Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool, Manchester is going to be put at a real disadvantage in the battle to attract shoppers, tourists and a skilled workforce. When the recession is over and shops and other businesses begin to expand again, the choice of where to locate will be made easier for them as they quickly draw a line through Manchester, taking their jobs and opportunities elsewhere.
We are being blackmailed into accepting these proposals and a loan that will be hanging round Manchester’s neck for the next 30 years. When Withington’s Labour candidate Lucy Powell says that by voting “NO”, Manchester will miss out on transport investment “for a generation”, I get the feeling that she is putting a gun to our heads.
She is assuming, I gather, that the Labour Party will be in government “for a generation” but with ideas like this one, I doubt that very much.
Loading ...
Add Your Thoughts
You must be logged in to post a comment.