Boris Johnson's u-turn on axing western c-charge zone

Sir_Humphrey

Boris has now denied that it will stay.

It seems that 20 outraged Sloane Rangers on the Standard website are enough to force the U-turn for a policy that would be only a very mild fiscal tightening. Imagine the response when politicians start proposing proper tightening.

Or maybe Boris is lying?

At least the next few years will have plenty of dark cynical laughs for me. What a farce.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

As someone who voted for Ken, I am glad to see that his policy will not be reversed after all.

...for now.

Out of interest, why did you support the policy?

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Things can't be that tight can they? If only a Boris lookalike had played Carcetti in The Wire...

Anyone who thinks that you can slash budgets without mega problems, should watch The Wire season 5.

I support the policy because congestion needs to be reduced, revenue found for public transport and people who drive into central London tend to be better off. It is a tax on a socially undesirable activity, which then subsidises desirable activity.

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Boris has now denied that it will stay.

Kulveer Ranger might be in for a bit of the hair-dryer treatment.

Once saw him on the politics show putting in a performance that made Guy Goma look well briefed.

inspector_monkfish

purch wrote: »

I knew you were an Essex boy.

I can just see you now.....at 06:45 in the morning, with the hoards at Fenchurch Street..........white socks and Asda carrier bag !!!!

hahaha :rotfl::rotfl:

no white socks in my draw old-timer
and i've never been to Asda in my life !! (Lidl and Netto me )


u got the time and station right though

purch

but you lot seem happy to revel in schadenfreude

Excuse me, but I have exclusive rights to that word on this forum !!!!

chucky

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that you can slash budgets without mega problems, should watch The Wire season 5.

I support the policy because congestion needs to be reduced, revenue found for public transport and people who drive into central London tend to be better off. It is a tax on a socially undesirable activity, which then subsidises desirable activity.

yes - traffic should be reduced but you're giving the freedom to drivers to come in and out of the zone as frequently as they want by buying a monthly or annual pass which is cheaper than buying the daily charge. that's not reducing traffic but encouraging it. the way that it was implemented is only of self-interest to Ken and his little croney civil servants.

it's a joke - i wouldn't be surprised that Capita the company that runs the whole joke is rewarding some civil servant(s) for keeping this thing in place.

Sir_Humphrey

chucky wrote: »

yes - traffic should be reduced but you're giving the freedom to drivers to come in and out of the zone as frequently as they want by buying a monthly or annual pass which is cheaper than buying the daily charge. that's not reducing traffic but encouraging it.

Er, no because without a charge you are charging people NOTHING to come in and out as much as they please.

It is true that not having period passes would reduce traffic further however.

All this goes to show the dissonance between giving vague waffle about "belt tightening", "living within your means" etc and actual concrete proposals for cuts. Guff is popular, policies are not. This is why politicians talk guff - despite what people say it makes politicians more popular!

inspector_monkfish

purch wrote: »

Excuse me, but I have exclusive rights to that word on this forum !!!!

i'm guessing your roots aren't in Somerset old chap
particularly as you have worked at LIFFE ???

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I support the policy because congestion needs to be reduced, revenue found for public transport and people who drive into central London tend to be better off. It is a tax on a socially undesirable activity, which then subsidises desirable activity.

It's all a bit 'big state' for me, too invasive into people's lives - ooh, I must ring up and pay, or I'll get fined for driving outside my own house. The apparatus for enforcement, the criminalisation of more middle class people - just seems a bit much.

People who live there and have direct experience of both the costs and benefits of the scheme tend to feel the negatives of the scheme outweigh the benefits. People who will never have to pay a fine or a charge seem a lot more relaxed about it... funny that!



If you live somewhere quiet you probably have unrestricted parking on your street. I do - it's fantastic - people can visit without fear of getting a ticket, I don't have to get a permit every year, no-one is employed using my taxes to fine anyone. It's great.
Now, if it got a bit busy and the council thought it might be worthwhile going down the permit-and-bay route, what would they do? Answer: they would canvas residents' opinions and only do so if residents supported it. If the residents were overwhelmingly against it, but a load of people who live somewhere completely different (possibly including yourself and George Monbiot) were all in favour of it... well, I would hope they would put residents' views first.
I suppose if the council was run by someone motivated by political dogma who actually disliked the residents... then the residents might get screwed.