nobbyclark
Member Since: 03 May 2005
Location: Perth, Scotland
Posts: 1268
|
Sent this to the Times and Telegraph this morning:
"Dear Sir
I am curious as to Ken Livingstone's definition of a 'congestion charge' if he is proposing to charge Band G vehicles to enter his charging zone (Telegraph, November 16th, Driving a 4x4? That'll be £25 a day, please).
This is not a congestion charge. At best, it is a pollution tax; at worst, it is an "envy" tax. There is no scientific or statistical evidence that the minority of cars that will be affected by this additional charge contribute significantly to the air quality problems in the congestion zone or London in general. Due to the proximity of London to other city centres, such as Paris and Rotterdam, the air quality of our capital is just as affected by other countries' emissions as it is our own. Indeed, a cynical mind would wonder if this charge is a way of taxing those that work hardest and choose to spend some of their income on expensive vehicles. Incidentally, owners of such vehicles already pay higher annual road tax and since they tend to use more fuel than other vehicles, they are already directly contributing to government funds through increased amounts of fuel duty.
As to removal of the residents' discount for Band G vehicles: a resident within the zone who uses their car to travel will be paying a staggering £6,500 in additional tax. This is not acceptable, and probably goes beyond the Mayor's remit for raising revenues. Again, the hardest-hit by this extra charge will be the affluent residents of Kensington and Chelsea, not traditionally the Mayor's supporters and doubtless a factor in his decision.
I am also dubious of the 'scope' of Band G. Ken Livingstone has made no secret of his loathing for the 'idiots' who drive so-called "4x4s" in London. Since this term is a broad-brush, encompassing many vehicles and is impossible to automatically detect using the charging software, he has now decided that all vehicles in Band G will fall under this extended charge. This even wider net will capture many vehicles that are not really the target of his tax, but which will get caught up by the heavy-handedness of this proposal. Unfortunately, what this does not include are: the large number of small vehicles that are poorly maintained and produce considerable amounts of noxious CO2; also, it does not include the massive number of commercial vans that are primarily diesel; and most importantly, it will not include the tens of thousands of black cabs, the automatic versions of which fall into Band G (and most cabs in London have automatic transmissions). He is therefore only targeting a minority of road-users, with no apparent logic behind the selection process.
Finally, the Mayor has stated that he intends to consult on these proposals. Unfortunately, he does not have a good record of conducting these consultations very professionally and he has an even worse record of actually agreeing with the results. When the congestion charge extension was proposed, a difficult-to-get-hold-of and comprehend form was made available; of those that actually responded, the survey showed 63% of residents and 72% of firms were opposed to the western extension. However, the Mayor said that he was not 'minded' to listen to this and that the potential benefits of saving 5 minutes of journey time were worth the effort of extending the zone west. It is therefore likely that such a consultation on this emissions proposal will also be ignored, which is a huge waste of London residents' council tax, especially at a time when the Mayor has just squandered £35,000 of our tax on a failed junket to Latin America."
Have also sent a slightly modified version to the Mayor himself, asking him what form his consultation will take, and a version to the Conservative leader of the GLA and Conversative Transport spokesman asking them to oppose the proposal. No longer a D3 owner but still subscribed to multiple threads!
|
 17th Nov 2006 11:00 am |
|
|
|
|
DrLex
Member Since: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Ciderspace [Oi be in Zummerset]
Posts: 4863
|
Well-argued. I only hope either or both 'papers print it in its entirety. Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
Member of Club Med Sucks
|
| 17th Nov 2006 2:33 pm |
|
|
DG
Site Moderator
Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50944
|
For those that might not have recognised the link of this thread to this one:
http://www.disco3.co.uk/forum/topic7317.html?highlight=
A large proportion of individuals will be scoffing at 4x4 drivers perhaps without realising that theirs is one of the remaining 83% of vehicles on the 225gm list that isn't a 4x4  21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021
|
| 17th Nov 2006 2:42 pm |
|
|
nobbyclark
Member Since: 03 May 2005
Location: Perth, Scotland
Posts: 1268
|
Very interesting facts. I suggest you send a missive to the national papers too, pointing out the fallacy of Ken's petty vendetta. No longer a D3 owner but still subscribed to multiple threads!
|
| 17th Nov 2006 3:29 pm |
|
|
