Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Red ken wants to make band G cars pay £25 congestion charge

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
and band A & B pay nothing....


i say it's a good thing
«13

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I say Ken's an embarrassment to London who will hopefully lose the next election. Bad idea too, don't agree with it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aren't they already attacked enough on fuel tax and road tax charges. A congestion charge should charge everyone the same, they take up pretty much the same amount of space on the road.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can you post the banding's please? I assume you're talking band G are 4x4s in whice case I'm all for it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry for being dumb but don't drive and didn't know cars had ratings. Is a G like some petrol guzzling 4 by 4 or something and A is an economical little run around ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's the vague jist.

    There are plenty of people who need their 4x4 and only have one car, and are going to get hit very hard by anything daft like this. It won't affect the chelsea tractors as their owners have enough money to pay anyway. It's another underhand tax.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well yes people who can afford it will pay it, those that can't will suffer. And like S.M. said if it's a congestion charge it's about space not emissions.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the congestion charge is a tax it's a pretty useless one. I haven't got up to date figures to hand, but it cost £200million to set up and was estimated to raise £214.5m in its first year, £93.4m went on admin and only £121m went back to be spent on Transport.

    OK the admin costs are estimated as going down in future years (I'm not sure whether they did or in didn't), but even in 05/06 they're estimated as £79.2m.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2780249.stm

    There may be an argument about reducing car use, but in that case they'd be better hiking up car tax or petrol prices (and giving better tax breaks to public transport providers with the extra revenue), rather than set up a new and expensive mechanism to gather it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who needs a 4x4 in London anyway?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    init, people shudnt be driving around vehicles like that in central london. theres no need for it at all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But Jocasta and Monterray must get to their 5 year olds conversational Spanish class somehow :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote:
    But Jocasta and Monterray must get to their 5 year olds conversational Spanish class somehow :D

    But surely people who are taking pre-schoolers to learn a foreign language ought to be commended, not taxed.;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's the vague jist.

    There are plenty of people who need their 4x4 and only have one car, and are going to get hit very hard by anything daft like this. It won't affect the chelsea tractors as their owners have enough money to pay anyway. It's another underhand tax.

    How many people who live or come to work to London need a 4x4 and only have one car?

    About 0%, that's how many.

    Absolutely fantastic proposal, and a sensible one. If some people insist on being so incredibly fucking selfish as to drive a monster truck designed for off road use in the busiest city in Europe they should bloody well paid for it and be encouraged to switch to an adequate form of transport.

    Ken Livingstone is the best thing that has happened to London in years, and if there was any doubt of him getting reelected that's gone now.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ken Livingstone should have his oxygen taxed and pay for every cubic metre of carbon dioxide he exhales.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seems a bit out of order really that different people wanting to visit London would have to pay a different amount, im not sure what band my car would be but I am guessing it would be high, (Honda Prelude 2.2Vtec), so I don’t see why I should pay any more to see my family up there then any other person going to the capital should
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I can't believe you'd really want to drive through the congestion zone. Most people would just park outside it (and you can get damn close without going in) and then use the underground - it's quicker, easier, cheaper and you'll never be able to park anywhere near anything you'd want to visit anyway.

    Remember the congestion charging area isn't London - it's the center of London.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    How many people who live or come to work to London need a 4x4 and only have one car?

    About 0%, that's how many.

    I think you'll find you're wrong. Anyone that tows regularly or has hobbies that involve lots of outdoors will find that the car best suited to them is a 4x4. These people can either take the long route round the congestion charging zone (thus increasing emissions and road wear), or if the congestion charge is reasonable take the direct route.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    To be honest I can't believe you'd really want to drive through the congestion zone. Most people would just park outside it (and you can get damn close without going in) and then use the underground - it's quicker, easier, cheaper and you'll never be able to park anywhere near anything you'd want to visit anyway.

    Remember the congestion charging area isn't London - it's the center of London.


    with that i would perfer to park my car on my dads drive in london then in some random car park where someone with steel from it, or open there doors denting it.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I say Ken's an embarrassment to London who will hopefully lose the next election. Bad idea too, don't agree with it.

    Most londoners would disagree - he's probabl one of the best mayors they've had. So I don't like all his policies myself - this one included - but I'll put up with it, because he does a fucknig good job.

    And maybe one day, I'll cruise round London in a 5.0 Litre '77 Trans Am to piss him off.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i've heard they're planning to bring the congestion charge to Manchester in a few years. i think its just a way to get even more money from people.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    when i saw the title to this thread i just saw 'red ken wants to make ban...' or something. i was like why is there a thread about shampoo in the p&d board?! :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's the vague jist.

    There are plenty of people who need their 4x4 and only have one car, and are going to get hit very hard by anything daft like this. It won't affect the chelsea tractors as their owners have enough money to pay anyway. It's another underhand tax.

    oh i forgot about all those farmers in london who must drive around their land hurding sheep!
    yes they can afford big cars so should pay for the consequences a big car that produces above average emiisions! go Ken!
    use the tube or buy a smaller car, easy!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who needs a 4x4 in London anyway?
    Just what I was thinking. 'Underhand tax' it might be seen as, but I have no problem with the 'Chelsea tractor' drivers subsidising owners of practical city vehicles.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    And maybe one day, I'll cruise round London in a 5.0 Litre '77 Trans Am to piss him off.

    Well apparently you've rigged the Euromillions draw, so that should be possible :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you'll find you're wrong. Anyone that tows regularly or has hobbies that involve lots of outdoors will find that the car best suited to them is a 4x4. These people can either take the long route round the congestion charging zone (thus increasing emissions and road wear), or if the congestion charge is reasonable take the direct route.
    90% of all 4x4s in this country never see a dirt track- let alone regularly.

    IIRC, when it comes to London-based Chelsea tractors the figure is 95%.

    And of the 5% of all 4x4s that do go off track, how many are for work reasons (i.e. having to travel on peak times between Mondays and Fridays)?

    And of the remaining few (if any) 4x4 drivers who live in London, who go off road and who need to do it during peak hours, how many don't have/can't afford another car?

    Please let's not kid ourselves. Practically nobody at all whatsoever in London needs a 4x4. There might be 1 in a 100. 2 at the very most. Well, to put it blantly, tough luck. The needs of the many millions outweigh the needs of the few dozen.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But what do the many million need that high band car owners should subsidise for them? If it's the space on the central capitals road then the high band cars don't take up any more space than anything else.

    I realise that lots of the Chelsea tractors don't get used for their fit purpose.

    I will also admit that I have a personal gripe, I use a 4x4 for loading kayaks onto and taking to nice bits of water. By using the Landy we can take 4 people and 4 sets of kit in one car, if we use my brothers Clio then we need 2 cars. Why should people who genuinely use them be punished?

    I get your drift, you want to take more money off those nasty rich people with big cars, but why should it be done as a congestion charge.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm afraid that I don't have much to add to this debate apart from Aladdin makes perfect sense. We want to do something about climate change, but whinge at taxes that are designed to curb that? We can't have it both ways.

    But the problem with taxes like these is the super rich arent really fussed. And a lot of the people driving in central london are super rich. So from that point of view, it just seems to be about maximising revenue. Also, I'm not sure I agree with it being free for category A and B vehicles, because they're still contributing towards congestion which causes in itself a lack in fuel economy x 100s of cars that are congested, x slower transport = all bad things. :(

    Scary monster: 'nice bits of water' aren't in the central of london though...

    when car tax changes to road tax with GPS and all that, you'll get taxed depending on the type of roads you drive on and when. The cheapest will be out of town B roads, the most expensive will be innercity congestion hotspots like central london. Makes perfct sense to me, because it provides a disincentive for people to drive in central London, which is a good thing for the opposite of the reasons above.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Taxing pollution is different to taxing congestion though.

    Start taxing industry and freight for it's carbon emissions and I might go along with taxing private drivers too. They are already paying more through the high fuel tax which they pay more for because of their higher fuel consumption.

    Congestion charge should punish those who add to the congestion . Making A and B free is ludicrous, like ShyBoy said, that'll only add to congestion (and emissions).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're right, there are no nice bits of water anywhere near London, but that's where the journey starts from.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have mixed feeling about this.

    I feel that if people can afford a rumbling 4x4 in London, then they can probably afford an extra amount in their tax. However, the cars that Ken has lined up to be 'free' from congestion charges (hybrid cars etc) are really not very good for taking families around in. Most of them are tiny, flimsy little things ... not much space for a family.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is one of my gripes though.

    You keep hearing 'they can afford it so they should pay for it'. Maybe we should just charge everyone 0.01% of their annual income to drive in the congestion charging zone, maybe we should resort to communism, or maybe we could charge everyone the same for the congestion they cause.
Sign In or Register to comment.