Complaint about public transport

Is it not interesting that when caught out Troll JNugent resorts to questioning people's ability to use or understand English?

No? Fair enough.

Reply to
Brimstone
Loading thread data ...

Well, I know that the people who are having the "Congestion" Tax extorted from them are not the ones benefitting from anything it is spent on (or anything there are plans to spend it on).

And as you don't seem to have known that, perhaps you'd better have a re-think, Coco.

Reply to
JNugent

Er... quite.

Reply to
JNugent

Are you saying the people who pay the congestion charge don't get any benefit at all?

clive

Reply to
Clive George

Actually, it's the same Mad Ken who didn't have the bottle to put the "Congestion" Tax to a referendum. Three cheers for the councillors (all of them) of Edinburgh City Council, who seem to understand that being elected to loacal government is not quite the same thing as being appointed dictator. And three more for the sensible people of that city, who saw through the lies and the foolishness of the anto-car nutters. I'm sure you agree.

You *know* that the "Congestion" Tax isn't about traffic.

It's about raising money.

And now Mad Ken wants to put it up by 60%.

If it wasn't about raising money (and he plainly predicts that he will raise more money by increasing his Tax), then why is he increasing it?

And isn't 60% a rather high increase?

Blimey, it's nearly as much as Council Tax has gone up under Labour!

Reply to
JNugent

What I wrote is absolutely clear.

Reply to
JNugent

That'll be a no then. So that's ok, the people who pay the congestion charge get a benefit from their payment. Seems reasonable to me.

(anyway you're wrong - one of the things the charge is spent on is the actual scheme which they're benefiting from)

clive

Reply to
Clive George

It isn't.

Well, it would, I dare say.

Nonsense. And disingenuous, misanthropic nonsense at that.

It would "benefit" mamy people if all male drivers living in London were immdiately banned from driving or keeping a car (even if they had somewhere off-street to park it). In my submission, that wouldn't make it right. But perhaps, in your view of the world, it would.

Reply to
JNugent

Hey, look, a straw man.

clive

Reply to
Clive George

Heh heh. So don't drive into the congestion zone. Everyone else has no problem realising this is the reason for it. Apart from you, of course, who find using public transport beneath you, but don't want to pay for the alternatives.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

And just what do you call an election?

Don't you just love those wankers who call for a referendum when their views - which of course are always those of everyone - are proved to be anything but.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

So smokers should have the tax they pay spent solely on hospice care if and when they get a terminal disease? Drinkers similarly?

Your fuel taxation spent on maintaining your car?

Which planet do you normally inhabit?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

He's already paying for the alternatives. Several times over.

Reply to
Huge

I don't.

I don't have to.

I don't live there, I don't work there, and I never go there (any more) on a weekday - not even to spend money.

As a pure aside, if that is the reason for it, you could surely have no objection if the county councils of the Home Counties were to introduce a trunk-road congestion charge payable only by residents of the Smoke - could you?

But enough of that - we both know that the "Congestion" Tax fulfils two purposes:

(a) it hurts people that Mad Ken has taken it into his "brain" to dislike (ie, the sort of people who earn their own living, pay the taxes that pay his wages, pay for their own transport needs several times over and are still seen as nothing more than The Bank of Ken), and

(b) it raises money to be spent on other people, who are considered by Mad Ken to be somehow "deserving", because they have different qualities.

Well, as Huge has already said, I (and millions of others) already pay - handsomely - for something better and more suited to my/our needs than public transport. Or at least, better than the sort of public transport run by fanatics like your hero.

Reply to
JNugent

Something different from a referendum.

If you aren't sure of the difference (and if you say so, I accept that you are not), then just ask any Edinburgh City Councillor.

They'll soon explain the difference.

Then you'll know.

Do you mean that the Labour voters of Edinburgh actually decided in favour of a "Congestion" Tax in the referendum that their City Council had the bottle to hold?

When did they do that?

Reply to
JNugent
[...]

...or any Edinburgh resident

We had a vote on a complicated, two zone, high-tech "congestion charge" of a splendidly bureaucratic design the net income from which was to be hypothecated for (public)transport purposes.

Registration to vote was slightly complicated if you had chosen not to appear on the version of the Electoral Roll sold to marketers, the postal vote involved several envelopes which required assembly in a precise order with the appropriate bits showing through windows.

The council campaigned actively, at considerable expense, for a "yes" vote, including glossy propaganda with each postal voting pack.

:)

We said "no", three to one on a ~62% turnout.

Edinburgh is not badly congested, except for brief a.m. and p.m. squeeze points, most of which could be relieved by reversing some of David Begg's more loony "traffic calming" measures.

A
Reply to
Alistair J Murray

Is it not likely though that if those allegedly "loony "traffic calming" measures" were removed many people may well adopt the attitude that because the traffic is flowing easier they will take to travelling by car and increase congestion back to the point it is at present, or worse, so getting the traffic calming by default with added pollution?

Reply to
Brimstone

As has everyone. Hasn't it sunk into you yet that little if any taxation is 'ring fenced'? And if you'd prefer it was, where would you draw the line? The obvious one that would be difficult to ring fence is tobacco taxation.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Like all those who voted for him? Or are you saying non of those who did come into the above categories?

It's spent on helping those he represents.

But since that's not you, tough shit.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Given the congestion charge was perhaps the main thing in the electorate's mind - since they already have local councillors for other things - in practical terms it was. Of course, even if there had been a referendum, with an overwhelming vote in favour, which all polls suggest, you'd still whinge on and on.

Edinburgh doesn't have an elected mayor, so rightly decided on a referendum.

I've no great knowledge of the traffic conditions in Edinburgh - or their voters - and I'd warrant you don't either.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.