June 12
2004
Will the Tories learn?
» Posted on June 12, 2004 10:49 AM » Category: UK politics

My own entirely unscientific poll on the mayoral election yesterday: I asked 17 people for whom they had voted. Every one of them said they had made their decision entirely on the basis of one issue: the congestion charge.

6 said they had voted for Norris to get rid of it, and the rest - like me - voted through gritted teeth for Livingstone to make sure the charge remained.

As I say, entirely unscientific. But that's been my experience throughout the campaign.

Now, perhaps, the Tories will do what they should have done a year ago and drop their opposition to a throroughly sensible, Friedmanite market mechanism. Then they can get on with winning the support of those of us who would oppose Livingstone tooth and nail on almost every other issue. But then again, expecting the Conservatives to learn from their election defeats flies in the face of the past seven years' experience.


MessageSpace
Comments

Were any of the those who agreed with the charge people trying to run a small business inside the zone or was it solely other chatterers in Upper Street?

Stated by: yoy on June 12, 2004 6:09 PM

I live and work in the outskirts of London and don’t own a car. Ken’s contribution to my life has been a £250 increase in my council tax, increasing bus fares from 70p to £1 and some incredibly patronizing posters about littering. The congestion charge only affects the tiny minority of Londoners who regularly drive in central London during its hours of operation. More people use the Central Line alone than drive in the congestion-charging zone. All Ken has done has spent a great deal of money “solving” a problem that wasn’t a problem to most voters. I dislike the idea that he should be rewarded by a second term simply because he had an idea and implemented it – no matter how badly.

Stated by: Ed on June 13, 2004 12:58 PM

I look forward to your explaining your support for the charge to all those business who are/will suffer as account of this assinine tax. We Londoners pay higher taxes so the terrorist loving scum-bag Ken can hold parties for anti-war types and celebrate other country's patron Saints.

Of course, this all the fault of CCO who managed a stich-up so that oik Norris got the nod. The Tories might not have been able to beat Red Ken, but I am sure anyone else would have made a much closer race.

Stated by: Andrew Ian Dodge on June 13, 2004 5:25 PM

Friedmanite? You are an ungood double-thinker and I claim my £5.

What is Friedmanite about a socialist politician introducing a suveillance system across all London to enable the taxing of drivers to fund a state owned subsidised and loss making bus network?

I'm not sure that using the words "Friedmanite"and "tax" in a sentence without the word "cut" is ever correct.

You are clearly spending far too much time in statist Brussels and need to take a holiday somewhere - howzabout free market Hong Kong where you can travel on the futuristic cheap Mass Transit Railway system, operated by dividend paying free enterprise.

http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/investors/2003srpt_e.htm

Stated by: paul d s on June 14, 2004 4:22 PM

If you were a true believer you would understand that the Congestion "Charge" has nothing whatsoever to do with road pricing, and everything to do with tax.

1. It bears no relation to congestion - if there is no traffic you still pay. In Singapore the system is indeed linked to the amount of congestion and the charge rises and falls accordingly during the day. In London, its just a toll.

2. It bears no relation to frequency. Once you have paid, you can enter the zone as many times as you like. Again, not true road pricing.

3. There was no subsitution for other motoring taxes, and in an atmosphere of rising motoring tax, it becomes just another tax. Give me a free tax disc, or cheaper petrol and I will gladly pay the charge.

4. The tax was imposed without the provision of an adequate alternative. And dont bleat to me about the buses, the truth is that because of the charge 350,000 fewer people a week are using central London by any form of transport, and for a city that thrives on retail and trade and entertainment, this has to be bad news.

5. Finally let me scotch the myth that this has been for "investment" in public tranport. The truth is that it has been a financial disaster for London. Not only is it not raising the promised £200m - now down to £6m per annum after costs. But the loss elsewhere has been enormous. London Councils in the zone have lost something like £30m in parking income (which was hypothecated by law for transport spending like taxi cards for the elderly and school buses). In addition the treasury cut Kens transport grant by the forecast amount the charge would raise ie £200m. Hence by my maths the charge has actually cost London something like £224m per annum in lost revenue. Notwithstanding the effect on the retail industry in the zone.

So feel pleased by all means that you voted for Livinstone over Norris, but dont be so sure that you havent helped to shaft the small shopkeeper and the resident with kids up their collective backside, created hundreds of public sector parasitical jobs, and contributed to London being the second most expensive place to live on the planet.

Well done Stephen!

Stated by: Kit Malthouse on June 15, 2004 10:50 AM

Interesting also that in his first post election interview in the Standard yesterday, Ken talked enthusiastically about three things - what a huge mistake Blair had made in Iraq, how much he wanted a change in the White House (repeating his assertion that Bush is the greatests ever threat to mankind) and the imposition of (yet another) tourist tax.

And you made a bargain to exchange this and his other crap, for the lousy congestion charge. Good Call !!


Stated by: Kit Malthouse on June 17, 2004 10:24 AM
Stated by: bundlebox on July 13, 2006 5:23 PM
Post a comment

    


    •