Increased Congestion Carge petition

[SeanMacGabhann]

Why would he evoke so much hatred in you Keef? - Just curious. I mean, what's he actually done as opposed to how he sounds or looks?

[peckhamboy]

You mean, what's he done other than offend almost every minority going (and much of the majority as well), introduce unpopular and arbitrary schemes that seem to do nothing other than bring in more money for him to spend on similarly ludicrous ideas, surround himself with his mates who create jobs for the boys at our expense and generally just be a corrupt liability who considers himself accountable to nobody? Still, he fits in perfectly with the modern Labour party...

[Keef]

He's pretty much answered for me. For me the last bit about being accountable to nobody is pretty much the straw that breaks the camel's back. I hate arrogance, and he is arrogance personified.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'd need to see more evidence than that - that is pretty much the Standard line on hime and apart from the row with the reported I would say more minorities are on side than not

unpopular and arbitrary schemes? Such as? Congestion charge? Popular with enough people to get him re-elected. Which also answers the "answes to nobody" accusation.

he was also bang on about the tube privatisation deal but no-one would support him then - would have saved everyone fortunes

[*Bob*]

He's accountable to the whole of London. They call it 'an election', I believe.

[Keef]

He undoubtedly has a good mind for business, although I suspect he'll see how he can benefit before thinking how Londoners can. I don't know, I'm not as up on there things as I should be, I just know that I find him to be a nasty little turd, sometimes we just don't take to people.

[*Bob*]

He's definitely a Marmite politician, I'll give you that, Keefie.

I can't stand Marmite. But I do like Ken.

[zephyr]

Just had an email from the Porsche judicial Review as follows - interesting reading but I am sure someone on here will try to point out that the research was flawed or something.

PORSCHE UPDATE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS

July 2008

Legal campaign update -

Porsche wins victory in congestion charge challenge

Thank you very much for your support as we challenged

Mayor Livingstone's proposed ?25 congestion charge in London.

As you saw for yourself, the congestion charge was a major issue

in the mayoral campaign and the candidate who opposed this

extension, Boris Johnson, was elected Mayor.

I am pleased to inform you that, today, the Administrative Court

in London has approved a consent order quashing the increase to

the charge. The new Mayor's legal team accepted that the

previous Mayoral administration should have taken into account

research from King's College which showed that the new charge

would actually increase CO2 emissions in Greater London and,

consequently that the new charge could, in fact, be unlawful.

Porsche has always been confident that the legal case was right

and now we are proud to have played a decisive role in striking

down such a blatantly political tax targeting motorists.

It is expected that significant legal costs will be awarded and

Porsche has decided to donate those costs to a fantastic charity

called Skidz, which takes at-risk young people and trains them in

motor vehicle maintenance and mechanics. This gives them the

tools and confidence they need to find gainful employment and

avoid a life of crime.

The support from Porsche will allow Skidz to open a facility in

Hillingdon, providing this opportunity to young Londoners for

the first time.

If you have any further comments or questions, you can contact

Porsche directly by e-mail at [email protected] or

telephone 08457 911 911.

Thank you again for your support which was tremendously

encouraging and important to the challenge.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Goss

Managing Director

BBC link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7494495.stm

[lozzyloz]

How reassuring to know that Porsche have the quality of the air that we breath close to their hearts. Perhaps Boris should make 4x4's compulsory.

[Huguenot]

'Porsche wins victory'...?

Work out the contradictions in this if you will...

"the congestion charge was a major issue in the mayoral campaign and the candidate who opposed this extension, Boris Johnson, was elected Mayor"

And

"we are proud to have played a decisive role in striking down such a blatantly political tax targeting motorists"

Little snots with round pink faces.

[zephyr]

Does look fab though, don't you think? I do like the look of thouse Porsche Cayennes (sp?);-)

Which ever way you look at it I am glad that I will not have to pay so much on the very rare occasions that I take my fairly common family car into town during the week.

I would not argue if I had a 4x4 but this was penalising some people with smaller MPVs and estates.

[indiepanda]

From what I read the issue with the new charge was that cars with emissions below a certain level wouldn't be charged at all, while the gas guzzlers would be charged ?25. It was the first part of it that was going to lead to increased emissions not the ?25 levy on gas guzzlers.

I really struggle with the concept Porsche did this for any other reason than they were worried the increase in congestion charge on their cars would hasten the trendy switch to the likes of the Toyata Prius from supercars!

[Huguenot]

zephyr.. ?? ::o Did I miss the irony??

You feel that a two-seater Porsche burning hydrocarbons and puking planet poison at an average speed of 10 mph is okay, but a 4x4 is not?

You feel that Porsches sit in the same category as family estates?

Am I pissed?

I must have misunderstood?

This was a tax on high emission vehicles, not Porsches. If Porsches are included it's because they vomit benzene not because the world doesn't like arriviste nouveau riches.

[James]

Sadly predictable that Boris would do this.

Fair enough if the proposed charge was unfair, let's have a debate and tweak the rules. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater like this is totally irresponsible and smacks of typical Tory hypocrisy - we'll help our mates with big cars who vote for us and then pretend it's about helping families or small businesses or whatever... As ever they are totally out of touch.

I still have yet to understand why any family NEEDS to drive a Chelsea tractor into Central London. Can someone enlighten me? Do we not have one of the most extensive public transport networks in the developed world?

[SteveT]

Pity it is so unreliable and full of smelly riff-raff eating their stinking chips on the bus with their greasy fingers....

why don't they ban that stinking food on buses?

[zephyr]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> zephyr.. ?? ::o Did I miss the irony??

>

> You feel that a two-seater Porsche burning

> hydrocarbons and puking planet poison at an

> average speed of 10 mph is okay, but a 4x4 is

> not?

>

> You feel that Porsches sit in the same category as

> family estates?

>

> Am I pissed?

>

> I must have misunderstood?

>

> This was a tax on high emission vehicles, not

> Porsches. If Porsches are included it's because

> they vomit benzene not because the world doesn't

> like arriviste nouveau riches.

Eh?

Yes Porsches are nice cars but the type being referred to is their version of a 4x4 (Cayenne). If I had one then I would expect to be taxed more (though not necessarily by the 'Congestion' charge).

I don't drive one but my car would have fallen into the same category as these 4x4s as its emissions range (along with a large number of larger family cars).

As I think I said that the beginning of this thread I used to drive an N reg 2.4lt Automatic Toyota Previa which did 14mpg. Two years ago we decided to get a newer car mainly as it was so fuel inefficient so we bought a Sharan as we have 4 kids (and yes it was our choice to have 4 kids). It is way more efficient however falls foul of the cut off by 8g per mile of CO2.

This is the reason I have a problem with the increased charge.

Everyone keeps baging on about 4x4s and seems to think it is only those that are affected. I even got an admission by the guy behind Alliance against 4x4s that this was unfair.

So no, I do not feel they should be in the same category but unfortunately some of them are.

[Huguenot]

Ah okay understood, I thought I was confused. I understand where you're coming from.

However, I don't hold much truck with the indignation.

If you make the choice to have four kids, then there are heavier costs associated - bigger house etc. etc. One of those costs is a bigger environmental impact tax, because, wait for it, four kids has a bigger environmental impact.

Your choices to do what's right for you have an impact on those around you, and it's only reasonable that you should bear a larger share of the costs for the increased impact on society.

[zephyr]

thats bollocks!

So we should be taxed more for having more kids - is that what you are suggesting?

My house is exactly the same size as all the others on the street yet half of them are occupied but couples only. Should they be penalised for not utilising the rest of their house - your arguement could work both ways.

[Huguenot]

erm... yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Social resources include not only man-made contributions such as roads and street lighting, but environmental assets such as clean air and water. If you have a large family and don't pay extra for increased use of social resources then you're effectively expecting other people to pay for your kids. Seems a bit rude?

So in that respect, your indignation at paying higher taxes for having a large family seems a little bit misplaced? Childless individuals have been putting their hands in their pockets for families for years, and now families add insult to injury?

Couples already do pay extra - their per capita rental/mortgage costs, heating costs, water costs, council tax fees are all signficantly higher than those paid per capita by a household with a larger number of residents. Three times higher than a family of six.

Likewise if they're travelling into Central London as a couple by car then their congestion charge is 4 quid each, and your family of six people is currently 1.33 each. That discount is not in line with the cost to the environment of your emissions.

[James]

Well said Huguenot.

Besides which, those Porsche Cayennes are perhaps the most fugly-looking things on the road since the Austin Allegro. Only less loveable.

Basically the Porsche Cayenne is a tank that does 150mph (why oh why?) and to hell with the environment. IMO ?25 congestion charge wouldn't be enough for these anyway, it should be at least ?100.

[zephyr]

I guessed when I started this thread that I would get caned either because I dared be against the charge or because in some eyes I am irresponsible enough to have 4 children. Do I care - not really. Lifes too short and I have more important things to worry about.

I started it to get a discussion going about it but it does seem to keep reverting to a 'lets all have a go' thread.

You will be pleased to know, I am sure, that from next year my car tax is virtually doubling to ?415. It may be a good idea for people to check their own cars if they were registered 2001 onwards as 43% will see an increase!

[Huguenot]

Oh piffle Zephyr, I wasn't 'having a go' and I don't think anyone else was. Just disagreeing and startled by your righteous ire. I apologise if it came across as niggling, it wasn't my intention.

It's easy to say 'this is a snob tax, I'm not a snob therefore I don't deserve it', it's moving the goalposts. It's much more difficult to say 'I come from a background where large families were celebrated and now the buggers are making me pay for them'.

Cars are a love-hate thing for me. I love the sense of personal freedom and self-determination they represent. All I wanted from the age of fifteen was a Triumph Spitfire (I know I know). However, I'd be a minkey if I didn't recognise that the world is choked with these steel bollockfests.

Our obsession with these objects is a right royal fu@k up. There is no freedom, no self-determination, only traffic jams and frustration. We believe that these are created by poor administration, but the honest truth is that there's just too many.

This forum is jammed with protestors about traffic wardens and clampers, because we think these people are stealing the dream. They're not, we just all have the same fantasy and the streets aren't big enough.

Get a grip, don't b@llock the government, bin the blasted car.

[zephyr]

My uncle had a Spitfire when I was growing up - it was great. Another uncle had an MGC - now that was a fab car!

There is quite a diversity on this forum as shown by a number of threads including this one - that in its self is good.

My gripe is purely personal and only surrounding my car.

Now my next topic my very well be the use of bus lanes by motorcyclists (legitimately). As a biker I am all for it but I know that there is some objection.

[bignumber5]

Zephyr, I don't think anyone is having a pop at you for having kids, but surely you are aware that there are environmental implications per head of population and since you have provided more heads, you can't be entirely suprised that you incur some cost into the process?

As for the 4x4 arguements, I'd like to jump in with the sweeping assertion that absolutely no one that lives close enough to the CC zone to be arguing your point should ever need a 4x4. I grew up in london, my mum walked us to school and walked us home. Took ages but didn't cost a penny. I appreciate that time constraints in the modern world do not always allow this kind of gesture anymore, but to suggest that the only possible alternative is a 4x4 pollution machine with bull-bars set to toddler-stun height is a bit all-or-nothing. No one in London needs a porsche cayenne. Assuming that all 4 kids need transporting somwhere simultaneously, with one parent to drive takes the total number of seats needed to 5. That'd be any hatchback or saloon, then. I would suggest that living 5 miles from the heart of central london is close enough to manage without a tank.

The concept of 4x4 was designed for off-roading. If your journey doesn't take you there, you don't need it. But you are entitled to drive one - as a luxury choice, rather than a necessity. And that's why it should cost you. Luxury items do.

[jollybaby]

Excellent suggestion - a family vehicle too small for the family! Are you suggesting that Zephyr's partner should follow by bike if they ever need to go anywhere en groupe? Or perhaps stay at home and tend to the organic vegetables?