Manchester Congestion Charge Referendum

[opinions4u]

How come the Scottish , Welsh and Irish Assemblies have made taxpayers' money available to ensure that no hospitals in their countries are allowed to charge for car parking?

(1) Because the tax system in this country takes money off the English and gives it to the Celts. Who keep demanding more.

 

(2) Because the Scots and Welsh are more likely to vote Labour than the English (who actually preferred the Tories at the last election).

[daznathe]

i'm not going to read 45 pages, i may not read any on this thread ever, so feel free to skip my views..

if 'congestion' so harms the 'economy', then the 'economy' should pay for the improvements. speculation in anticipation of acumulation, and all that

we pay enough road related tax already

we pay enough tax already

i dont believe voting yes would cure asthma, as has be implied by them yessers

they are a bunch of yessers, unarguably

ive tried so hard to make this readable, but i still refuse to excessively use the shift key on a messageboard

yes out

[daznathe]

45 pages? dense winker

just seen 25% yes. i dont mind admitting i expected at least 35% yes. no offence or owt

[StipeTripe]

As a wise man once said, you cant polish a turd.

 

 

And and even wiser one added, no but you can sprinkle it with glitter.

[Rebus_Latic]

(1) Because the tax system in this country takes money off the English and gives it to the Celts. Who keep demanding more.

 

(2) Because the Scots and Welsh are more likely to vote Labour than the English (who actually preferred the Tories at the last election).

 

It's all bollocks anyway. They couldn't scrap it at the PFI hospitals ie all the main ones in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee.

 

The Scots are also running Westminster btw....Brown, Darling, Alexander, gobby 'no warrant' speaker, Browne. They should p@ss off.

 

Btw it was Darling who scrapped the tram extension to Oldham in the 1st place. He's given the goahead to Edinburgh though (10 times the cost and not necessary).

And the congestion charge in Edinburgh was knocked back

[garcon]

So, erm, oafc0000, you know how you hate the car because of its contribution to climate change?

 

Do you not think your stance loses just a smidge of credibility if you jet off abroad somewhere on your holidays every year? I bet your carbon footprint purely from air travel is bigger than mine doing 18k miles a year in a big, nasty, thirsty, CO2 chugging performance car.

[oafc0000]

So, erm, oafc0000, you know how you hate the car because of its contribution to climate change?

 

Do you not think your stance loses just a smidge of credibility if you jet off abroad somewhere on your holidays every year? I bet your carbon footprint purely from air travel is bigger than mine doing 18k miles a year in a big, nasty, thirsty, CO2 chugging performance car.

 

It would only lose creditability if I was against raising taxes to combat how much we travel on them...

 

With any technology... Its not the technology that's bad... Its how we abuse that technology.... I welcome the Government raising taxes on air transport to the levels where people wouldn't use them like taxis aka Easyjet...

 

Lets compare like for like if were going to have a sensible discussion... I never said people shouldn't use cars.... Just that they should be used less...

Edited December 8, 2008 by oafc0000

[garcon]

OK, like for like.

 

You're railling against people who use their cars to go to work because they have to. But you use planes to go on holiday.

 

Why not take a viable alternative and holiday in the UK ... or even use other means to get to Europe? Yes it might take longer, it might even cost more, but surely that's not the point is it?

Edited December 8, 2008 by garcon

[frizzell54]

I believe that the Council Tax payers of Greater manchester will have to pick up the bill for any overspend, so some will pay the full charge and will also pay the overspend - which as with most things is a near certanty.

[oafc0000]

OK, like for like.

 

You're railling against people who use their cars to go to work because they have to. But you use planes to go on holiday.

 

Why not take a viable alternative and holiday in the UK ... or even use other means to get to Europe? Yes it might take longer, it might even cost more, but surely that's not the point is it?

 

But this highlights the issue! We have to do things to force peoples hand! Leave it to people and they wont make the right choice themselves!! If the Government priced me and others out of flying to France I wouldn't complain!!!!

 

I wouldn't call a ferry a clean alternative... The channel tunnel is a good alternative and something I have used on many occasions... There still isn't a real alternative to a transatlantic crossing though....

 

The government should ban regional flights!!!

Edited December 8, 2008 by oafc0000

[garcon]

A ferry is alot cleaner than flying. Although that is relative.

 

I've chosen a sound alternative to transatlantic crossings in the past few years - I just haven't gone!

[oafc0000]

A ferry is alot cleaner than flying. Although that is relative.

 

I've chosen a sound alternative to transatlantic crossings in the past few years - I just haven't gone!

 

If the cost of doing it priced me out... I wouldn't be doing it either... I would imagine its the explosion in short haul flights that is having the major impact on climate change when it comes to planes. Considering its the take off and landing that does the most damage.

 

Easyjet operating a flight from Liverpool to France four times a day would pump out more CO2 than a transatlantic flight.

 

Im not against cars, planes, trains, the space shuttle!! I just think we have to be more realistic about our use of them..

Edited December 8, 2008 by oafc0000

[garcon]

You're right about the explosion in short haul.

 

Personally I look at it as a number of choices, not all of them financial. I'm a car enthusiast but I'm also a believer that we must change our habits for the sake of the environment. So I fly seldom (won't be doing for a year or two now having covered a fair few thousand miles in the past two years), I recycle, I try to make my home efficient ... all to balance the effect of my car and the miles I cover.

[oafc0000]

Another issue with the car vs ferrys, trains etc...

 

The cost in CO2 when one is made... Compared to the cost of a ferry etc.... Obviously to do a correct comparison you would add up 200 cars worth....factor in the operating costs etc.... The car loses out again...

 

We need ways to make young people to consider not taking up the car...

Edited December 8, 2008 by oafc0000

[opinions4u]

Has nobody noticed that CO2 is a natural trace gas and not a pollutant? Carbon footprint this and carbon offset that is, quite frankly, a load of doo doo.

 

Anthropogenic global warming is at best an unproven theory and at worst an absolute con.

[Matt]

To claim that humankind has nothing to do with the climate change on the planet is, ironically - a load of rubbish.

 

I doesn't matter if you think it stacks up or not. The situation is that the planet is going through a warming phase, and we've forced the warming too. A draft of the report by 2,500 scientists said it is "very likely" (90% certain) that human activities were the main cause of warming in the past 50 years. The debate on mankind having an effect or not was declared over in scientific circles at this point.

 

In case you're a climate change denier and want to point to the fact that 'very likely' means they aren't 100% sure, 'very likely' is defined by the report as "a 90-99 percent probability."

 

In other words, pretty damned sure.

 

Yes, there is global warming, yes mankind has forced warming on the planet, and yes - we have reason to suspect the will be untoward outcomes from it.

[opinions4u]

To claim that humankind has nothing to do with the climate change on the planet is, ironically - a load of rubbish.

I would suggest that I favour views that humankind has little to do with climate change.

 

At the same time, I accept that the science is not settled one way or the other.

 

This was a good article in The Times:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

I for one don't always believe what scientists or politicians tell me.

 

Any suggestion that congestion charging is an environmental necessity is certainly misleading.

[real]

To claim that humankind has nothing to do with the climate change on the planet is, ironically - a load of rubbish.

 

Er, well maybe, but what about the CO2 absorption ability of the world's oceans?

 

Oceans absorb CO2, photoplankton use it for photosynthesis, Oxygen is produced.

 

 

100% of scientists thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it at one point in time. Scientists only have theories on global warming.

 

Personally I think global warming is being used as a persuader by the US and world corporations to push a move away from oil dependancy as it will run out in the near future ("near" in global economic terms - maybe 100 yrs or more).

[leeslover]

Oceans absorb CO2, photoplankton use it for photosynthesis, Oxygen is produced.

That's only effective so long as you are permanently increasing the amount of plankton (or trees, or whatever). Things die and rot and the process is reversed

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

The government should ban regional flights!!!

 

Eh..? Wouldn't that put more strain on an otherwise creaking and already congested public transport system and roads?

[oafc0000]

Eh..? Wouldn't that put more strain on an otherwise creaking and already congested public transport system and roads?

 

I would invest more into the public transport... I reckon the current public transport system could handle it anyway... Little excuess for regional flights...

Edited December 8, 2008 by oafc0000

[mikejh45]

There is indeed claim and counter-claim on what is the cause of global-warming.

 

One report by a world-wide, leading group of scientists that condemned Al Gore's error-ridden, pseudo Nobel prize-winning nonsense states that global-warming is 98-99% naturally occuring.

 

What we get thrown at us are politicians spouting theories as facts.

 

I think we need a live, televised debate so we can hear a balanced argument but that will never happen.

[oafc0000]

There is indeed claim and counter-claim on what is the cause of global-warming.

 

One report by a world-wide, leading group of scientists that condemned Al Gore's error-ridden, pseudo Nobel prize-winning nonsense states that global-warming is 98-99% naturally occuring.

 

What we get thrown at us are politicians spouting theories as facts.

 

I think we need a live, televised debate so we can hear a balanced argument but that will never happen.

 

I would be very interested in reading such a report...

[Matt]

Er, well maybe, but what about the CO2 absorption ability of the world's oceans?

 

Oceans absorb CO2, photoplankton use it for photosynthesis, Oxygen is produced.

100% of scientists thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it at one point in time. Scientists only have theories on global warming.

 

Personally I think global warming is being used as a persuader by the US and world corporations to push a move away from oil dependancy as it will run out in the near future ("near" in global economic terms - maybe 100 yrs or more).

100% of scientists thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it at one point in time

That's a weak analogy, that quote seems to be resting on a very flimsy comparison and really has nothing to do with todays science. If we start to disbelieve scientists and switch off to scientific discovery, we start to believe in other methods of explanation - which is very, very dangerous.

[futchers briefs]

Eh..? Wouldn't that put more strain on an otherwise creaking and already congested public transport system and roads?

And, like last year, how could we not enjoy a weekend away v brighton, by flying down and therefore "all of us" able to drink consumate amounts of ale on the way down!!

spray, spray, spray and keep it real!!