Congestion charge referendum - can you vote?

[ifstar]

Things i wished they had tried first before going for the easy option.

More buses for peak period travel.
Conductors on peak period buses.
More bus routes (sometimes because of the routes it can take 3 or 4 times as long by bus as by car).
Actively encouraging parents on the school run to either a) take several families kids and do it turn about b) provide a school bus service - could be paid for or subsadised by the parents or c) let them walk! never did me any harm and might help cut down on the fat scotland image.

If these got tried first and ran for a few years then if the problem still exists or is worse i would definitely be interested in introducing charges but it would be more sensible to a lot of other other alternatives first. Nobody wants to sit in queue's but the fact that they are choosing to as opposed to using public transport indicates that there is a problem somewhere. From my understanding of the leaflet, by 2006 they will have created/upgraded 6 park and rides. Why not wait till these and some other ideas have been tried first ? I am sure some people will say they have tired - but i honestly can't think of any really noticeable schemes that have been tried in the last few years.

[Lawrence Marshall]

Bob Jefferson has asked me to answer the legitimate query as to why we're holding a referendum on this matter in the first place.
The main point to make is that because the congestion charge would be the first time in Scotland that the government (Scottish Parliament) had conceded the principle of a "hypothecated" tax - only able to be used for a specific purpose, in this case transport - the Scottish Transport Minister, when agreeing in principle to Edinburgh's outline bid for congestion charging as a result of the granting of powers to local authorities to introduce congestion charging under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, stipulated that, before he would confirm any such scheme, the local authority would need to demonstrate clear public support.
To do so by means of the normal electoral system meant mixing this issue up with a whole range of other important matters such as education, social work, culture and leisure, cleansing, etc., etc. . There was always the danger that the normal election process would thus be "hijacked" by proponents and opponents of this scheme.
Hence our decision to demonstrate public support via a referendum. Of course, the danger here is that, whether for or against, some people will use a referendum to vote on something entirely different.
That's a risk we took. I hope that people do vote on the issue of congestion and how we tackle it and fund public transport. It's the future of our city we're talking about and it deserves serious thought from everyone. A referendum, in that regard, is a sign of our respect for the electorate. The Labour administration has put forward a brave proposal which it believes is in the long-term best interests of the city and eschewed the desire to look for short-term political advantage on this important matter.

Lawrence

[Porty]

That's a risk we took. I hope that people do vote on the issue of congestion and how we tackle it and fund public transport. It's the future of our city we're talking about and it deserves serious thought from everyone. A referendum, in that regard, is a sign of our respect for the electorate. The Labour administration has put forward a brave proposal which it believes is in the long-term best interests of the city and eschewed the desire to look for short-term political advantage on this important matter. Lawrence

Sorry Lawrence, the proposal that the Labour Party has put forward is not Brave. Brave would have been taking a decision.

Your rhetoric espouses "the long-term best interests of the city" "Its the future of our city we are talking about". So your "brave" council decide to gamble the implementation on a populist vote. As they say, there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity.

You also say" A referendum, in that regard, is a sign of our respect for the electorate. " It could also be easily interpreted as a sign that you place your own political futures on a higher priority level. One thing that's sure about the referendum, whatever the result, none of you will lose your jobs over it. The city may stiill be in the mire with no money to fix our transport system but hey, it was the most popular choice. How brave indeed.

A braver thing to do would have been to have some faith in Labour support and come out and say "elect us and we will have congestion charge." If you failed to get elected then you could have tried again. A referendum is a non-return valve, lose it and you have screwed the city for a long time to come, possibly forever.

To conclude: In your own words the Council have taken the risk of a referendum, for what it believes is a vital part of the City's future. If your gamble doesn't pay off, then you have collectively shown a poor level of judgment, Your decision will irreprably harm the city. I would say the Council's and its Councillor's positions will become untenable.

We will see how it pans out?

Stephen

[ali]

That's a risk we took. I hope that people do vote on the issue of congestion and how we tackle it and fund public transport. It's the future of our city we're talking about and it deserves serious thought from everyone. A referendum, in that regard, is a sign of our respect for the electorate. The Labour administration has put forward a brave proposal which it believes is in the long-term best interests of the city and eschewed the desire to look for short-term political advantage on this important matter. Lawrence

Sorry Lawrence, the proposal that the Labour Party has put forwrad is not Brave. Brave would have been taking a decision.

Your rhetoric espouses "the long-term best interests of the city" "Its the future of our city we are talking about". So your "brave" council decide to gamble the implementation on a populist vote. As they say, there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity.

You also say" A referendum, in that regard, is a sign of our respect for the electorate. " It could also be easily interpreted as a sign that you place your own political futures on a higher priority level. One thing that's sure about the referendum, whatever the result, none of you will lose your jobs over it. The city will stiill be in the mire with no money to fix our transport system but hey, it was the most popular choice. How brave indeed.

The braver thing to do would have been to have some faith in Labour support and come out and say "elect us and we will have congestion charge." If you failed to get elected then you could have tried again. A referendum is a non-return valve, lose it and you have screwed the city for a long time to come, possibly forever.

To conclude: In your own words the council have taken the risk of a referendum for what it believes is a vital part of the city's future. If your gamble doesn't pay off, then you have collectively shown a poor level of judgment, Your decision will irreprably harm the city. I would say the Council's and its Councillor's positions will become untenable.

We will see how it pans out?

Stephen

whilst I totally agree with Porty's analysis of how risky the Labour administration's decision to hold a referendum might well be for the future of Edinburgh's transport system I would also point to the sheer political opportunism of the other parties (especially the Lib/Dems who manage to support congestion charging nationally but disagree with it as a solution for Edinburgh) which led to the sight of the SSP's Colin Fox, Tory David McLetchie, the SNP's McCaskill and some matron from the Lib/Dems posing with their "vote no" placards. Nauseating!!

[Bob Jefferson]

Ali, you are spot on with this and I'm sure that come election time people, who might otherwise have voted Lib Dem, will remember this act of treachery, however they try to dress it up or rationalise it.

Porty, if it is the case that the Scottish Transport Minister insisted on a referendum then surely the Council had no choice in the matter? Or did they?

Maybe someone else can clear this up for us?

[Porty]

Porty, if it is the case that the Scottish Transport Minister insisted on a referendum then surely the Council had no choice in the matter? Or did they? Maybe someone else can clear this up for us?

Bob, think you are being a bit disingenous here. You invited Lawrence to enter the debate and explain why there was a referendum. Lawrence went to some lengths to embroider the risk that the Council took in calling a referendum. He explained:

Lawrence Marshall said: "The main point to make is that because the congestion charge would be the first time in Scotland that the government (Scottish Parliament) had conceded the principle of a "hypothecated" tax - only able to be used for a specific purpose, in this case transport - the Scottish Transport Minister, when agreeing in principle to Edinburgh's outline bid for congestion charging as a result of the granting of powers to local authorities to introduce congestion charging under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, stipulated that, before he would confirm any such scheme, the local authority would need to demonstrate clear public support. "

Im sure if the transport minister had insisted on a referendum then Lawrence would have stated this as the reason. Its a buck passing ring-dinger!! Surely no Politician worth his salt would miss such an opportunity to offload the responsibility for a poorly made decision?

Look at the words Lawrence chose "the local authority would need to demonstrate clear public support. "
In my book all Labour needed to do was to get elected on a manifesto that included congestion charging. Clear public support would have been duly demonstrated.

I'm not second guessing the outcome of the referendum. I voted Yes. I believe there has been tens of Million of Pounds spent on feasibility and legal cases, for this proposal. Does anyone else think that if they were always going to ask the people then why not do so at the outset?

[CatzVP]

Strange but true....I agree with Porty, not on his vote, but on his views that this is not a brave thing to do.... Its been put to a referendum, because if this idea falls on its butt, it wont be the councils fault, it was the public for voting for it..
The council was voted in by the people to make decisions for the people.... and if they screw up badly, they wont be voted in next time. Its all nice to feel that your part of the decision making...hmm..but that costs a lot of taxpayer money and takes so much more time.

[Lawrence Marshall]

Dear All,
how we got to where we are now is not really the point - the point is whether a "Yes" vote or a "No" vote will be better for the future of our city and those who live, work and play in it. That's the real issue here and a serious matter upon which you have a civic responsibility to decide. Maybe you would have preferred to leave that decision to politicians - but that's not what's on offer and arguably wouldn't have allowed us to demonstrate "clear public support".
I believe that voting "Yes" will allow us to both tackle rising congestion and improve public transport. Voting "No" gives us a lot less options to make a difference with.
Maybe the article below by Iain McWhirter in last weekend's "Sunday Herald" wil help to convince a few folk as to why voting "Yes" is the right thing to do.

Lawrence

* * * * *

Who will pay for knee-jerk reaction to congestion charge vote?


HOLYROOD COMMENTARY: Critics must look at the big picture, says Iain Macwhirter



THE sorry saga of congestion charging in Edinburgh is like climate change in microcosm. Everyone realises that it can’t go on – global warming or city congestion. It’s not difficult to understand what needs to be done. But in our consumerist democracy it’s becoming increasingly difficult to persuade people that the long term includes them. Electorates prefer to be treated like children and told fairy stories to protect them from uncomfortable realities.
Edinburgh is already close to gridlock, and with a 50% increase in congestion forecast over the next 15 years the city fathers realised they had to do something. Public transport won’t work because the roads are choked with cars. The sensible thing to do is to use the price mechanism to discourage casual road usage and provide funds for improving the public transport system.

It is, as they say in America, a “no brainer”. But what do you do when you discover that the people themselves opt to have no brains? What do you do when they would really rather not face up to their responsibilities as citizens, and would rather deceive themselves that somehow the arithmetic is wrong? And what do you do when local politicians, for their own purposes, conspire with the no brainers, confirm their prejudices and provide spurious grounds for continued inaction?

Welcome to the City of Edinburgh.

According to the latest poll, Edinburgh will vote by two to one against congestion charges in this week’s referendum. The council plan was for a £2 charge to enter the city centre during peak periods. Yes, £2. Less than an hour’s parking charges; less than the price of a pint of beer. The cash would go to develop a public transport network fit for one of the fastest growing cities in Europe.

If this were just a question of Edinburgh voting with its backside instead of its brains then it it wouldn’t be so bad. But if Edinburgh votes no, then we can forget about this policy being proposed anywhere in Scotland for decades. No city council will risk it. The experience has proved damaging to the Labour administration and local MPs are unhappy about the impact on their majorities. It means Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and the rest of the country could be condemned to gridlock.

Congestion charging is a common sense policy if ever there was one. Ideology hardly comes into it. Road pricing began as an idea from the right wing Adam Smith Institute in the 1980s, but it took “Red” Ken Livingstone to implement it. And the amazing thing is: it works. Congestion charging in London is one of the very few cases of a policy actually working better than anyone expected. Congestion was reduced by 30% after February 2003 and bus use has increased by 50%.

Supporters of congestion charging in Edinburgh are furious. They think that the council should just have followed the Mayor of London’s example and gone ahead without any referendum. That might have worked had it not been for the selfish and narrow-minded behaviour of the opposition parties who saw a chance of smashing Labour’s narrow majority on the rocks of public hostility to road pricing.

The Edinburgh Liberal Democrats in particular stand accused of the most egregious act of political opportunism in modern political history when they came out against congestion charging in the city even though it is national LibDem policy. The SNP have also opposed congestion charging in Edinburgh, even though they support the principle. And even the Scottish Socialists are agin it on the grounds that it discriminates against working people in their cars. So much for the Red-Green alliance. The Tories at least oppose congestion charging on the principled grounds that it damages business, even though their evidence is questionable. There was some initial loss of business in the centre of London after congestion charges were brought in, but most of it has been recovered since. Anyway, the long term cost to Edinburgh retailers is likely to be far greater if nothing is done and the city becomes so choked that customers desert it for out of town malls.

Needless to say the opposition parties did not have any practical alternatives to offer, except that there needed to be a better public transport system in place before Edinburgh got the charge. But that was never going to happen because the money wasn’t available. The politicians know they are playing with Edinburgh’s future here but they just can’t help themselves. The lure of cheap votes is too great.

But the final fatal blow was struck by Labour itself. Fife, Midlothian and West Lothian took their own Edinburgh Labour comrades to court over the congestion plan on the grounds that it discriminated against people in their areas who work in the capital. Many thousands of pounds of council taxpayers’ money has been handed to lawyers to indulge this Labour fratricide.

Of course, the Edinburgh scheme is not ideal. They should probably have started with one inner cordon rather than trying to impose two at once. It was likely to create anomalies and allow neighbouring councils an opportunity to manufacture a grievance. Edinburgh citizens who live outside the outer cordon but inside the council boundaries are exempt of the charge, whereas citizens of Midlothian, who live a similar distance outside the cordon, will have to pay. I’ve probably lost you already, so I won’t say any more about the two- cordon plan. Suffice to say it has provided plenty of scope for m’learned friends to make expensive mischief.

But the point is that it is the only scheme on offer. And the Labour council has promised not only to scrap it if it doesn’t work within two years, but to alter it in various ways to make it work better. It’s even offered to give free city centre parking in Edinburgh in exchange for the charge. But the windy city just doesn’t want to know.

Now, I may be underestimating the wisdom of the people of Edinburgh. I certainly hope so. But everyone I speak to seems to agree that the scheme is dead. The only hope for other cities is that the Scottish parliament will realise that it can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines.

The Executive bottled out of backing congestion charging and left it entirely to local councils to sort out, which was clearly a mistake. If it had had the courage of its convictions, the Executive might have been able to mobilise enough moral force to persuade Edinburghers that the nation was watching and that voting No would be Edinburgh’s second disgrace.

Well, its citizens can’t say they haven’t been warned of the likely consequences. Within a decade it will become almost impossible to get in or out of the city at peak periods. Economic development will be choked. The health of children will deteriorate. The city will lose its reputation as one of the most attractive places in Europe to live and tourists will start going elsewhere.

But when it comes down to it, Edinburghers would rather sit in their cars – even if they going nowhere. It is a sobering lesson in just how difficult it is to persuade people to take responsibility for their environment and the future of their children. We have become a society of fools. Edinburgh deserves everything it gets.

06 February 2005

[Porty]

Lawrence

Your missing the point.

Dear All,
how we got to where we are now is not really the point - the point is whether a "Yes" vote or a "No" vote will be better for the future of our city and those who live, work and play in it. That's the real issue here

Really, here was me thinking that the real issue was congestion.

Maybe you would have preferred to leave that decision to politicians - but that's not what's on offer

You talk like your Council had nothing to do with the decision to have a referendum. Just to make it clear; letting the politicians decide is not "on offer" because the Council decided to abdicate that power. Given your party has an overall majority, Im afraid its clear that Labour don't have the courage of their grandiose convictions. Cahones nada.

and arguably wouldn't have allowed us to demonstrate "clear public support".

Would you care to put forward a valid argument denying "Clear public support" for a Party that secures an overall majority on a manifesto that states uneqivocally that congestion charging will be introduced?

I believe that voting "Yes" will allow us to both tackle rising congestion and improve public transport. Voting "No" gives us a lot less options to make a difference with.

I sincerely hope the vote is "Yes". If the vote is "No" then you will share the honour of being a member of a Party that even with an overall majority could not deliver their cornerstone policy. Maybe the electorate will say "hang on a minute, if Labour cannot deliver what they passionately believe is right for this city, when they have all the power required to do so, what the hell can they deliver?"

[Bob Jefferson]

I think the time to apportion blame will be if/when the result is NO. At this point we may wish to consider the part played by each of the political parties on this issue.

Until then, those of us who are so inclined should be concentrating our efforts on convincing what I'm certain is still a large number of people who are undecided of the wisdom of voting YES. The fat lady has yet to sing.

[wangi]

Has anyone come across a breakdown of the £2 charge - how much does the collecting company get vs the council? i.e. is this a valid point re the proposed Edinburgh charge:

http://www.no-congestion-charge.com/

For the part year 2002/03 London expenditure was £77 million and income was £19 million giving a loss of £58 million. In the full year 2003/04 the expenditure was £142 million and the income £187 million, giving a profit of £45 million. About £80 million of the income is estimated to be from penalties. This means that if you just take the £5 charge, the scheme must run at a loss. In Edinburgh the charge will be £2. How can they make a profit?

[Porty]

Voting "No" gives us a lot less options to make a difference with.
Lawrence

Lawrencee, If there is a more poignant, relevant, pertinent or convincing statement made against having a referendum then I have not seen it. Perhaps Edinburgh District Council "The Brave" ought to have considered the implications of a "No" vote more carefully prior to taking the decision.

[ali]

Voting "No" gives us a lot less options to make a difference with.
Lawrence

Lawrencee, If there is a more poignant, relevant, pertinent or convincing statement made against having a referendum then I have not seen it. Perhaps Edinburgh District Council "The Brave" ought to have considered the implications of a "No" vote more carefully prior to taking the decision.

That'll be The City of Edinburgh Council the Brave, Porty. The District Council were scrapped by the Tories when they tried to gerrymander a few councils under the guise of local government re-organisation in the 1980's or early 90's, I think it was.


Anyway, if we were being really cynical you could argue that the Labour administration calculated from the start that they would never be able to persuade car owners out of their cars and came up with the referendum knowing that when the vote was lost all the other parties and the selfish motorists would get the blame!!!!

[Porty]

That'll be The City of Edinburgh Council the Brave, Porty. The District Council were scrapped by the Tories when they tried to gerrymander a few councils under the guise of local government re-organisation in the 1980's or early 90's, I think it was.

Oops , I stand corrected Ali. COEC The Brave it is.

Anyway, if we were being really cynical you could argue that the Labour administration calculated from the start that they would never be able to persuade car owners out of their cars and came up with the referendum knowing that when the vote was lost all the other parties and the selfish motorists would get the blame!!!!

Hahahahaha...but Nah. I think you are confusing ambition with ability.

If the vote is NO, no-one is going to look good. It will set the City's transport plans back many, many Years.

[Lawrence Marshall]

Ah wouldnae pretend at a' to be a Holy Willie but ah was thinking when ah read this yesterday that maybe auld Rabbie had a fair point tae mak when he wrote:

O ye wha are sae guid yersel'
Sae pious and sae holy
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your Neebors' faults and folly!

By the way, ah didnae ken auld Rabbie came fae Fife!

Lawrence

[MrSpoon]

Can someone clear something up for me?

It doesn't say it explicitly on any of the leaflets we've been given, but if you are living within either cordon, do you have to pay to re-enter that cordon?

I feel stupid asking this question - but it isn't actually down in black and white anywhere, and it seems I've talked to a lot of people who are under this ludicrous notion, and will be voting no as a result.

[MrSpoon]

I should have said, if anyone knows, please answer quickly!

One of the eejits (*cough*my father*cough*) will be sending it off on Monday I think.

[ifstar]

Can someone clear something up for me?

It doesn't say it explicitly on any of the leaflets we've been given, but if you are living within either cordon, do you have to pay to re-enter that cordon?

I feel stupid asking this question - but it isn't actually down in black and white anywhere, and it seems I've talked to a lot of people who are under this ludicrous notion, and will be voting no as a result.

If you are living within one of the cordons and leave but come back during the charging times then you will have to pay. You only pay a maximum of once per day though regardless of what cordon you go through or how many times. Bearing in mind the outer cordon is only operational in the morning for a few hours so if you leave that one but need to return before 10am then you will have to pay (ie you leave Portobello and head to Musselburgh and return via the main road or if you go to Fort Kinaird and return via the A1). The same would also be true if you lived in the inner cordon but worked in Portobello, you wouldn't pay leaving the inner cordon but when you came back home if it was before 6/6.30 - cant remember which - then you would have to pay.

Hope that makes sense.

[MrSpoon]

Can someone clear something up for me?

It doesn't say it explicitly on any of the leaflets we've been given, but if you are living within either cordon, do you have to pay to re-enter that cordon?

I feel stupid asking this question - but it isn't actually down in black and white anywhere, and it seems I've talked to a lot of people who are under this ludicrous notion, and will be voting no as a result.

If you are living within one of the cordons and leave but come back during the charging times then you will have to pay. You only pay a maximum of once per day though regardless of what cordon you go through or how many times. Bearing in mind the outer cordon is only operational in the morning for a few hours so if you leave that one but need to return before 10am then you will have to pay (ie you leave Portobello and head to Musselburgh and return via the main road or if you go to Fort Kinaird and return via the A1). The same would also be true if you lived in the inner cordon but worked in Portobello, you wouldn't pay leaving the inner cordon but when you came back home if it was before 6/6.30 - cant remember which - then you would have to pay.

Hope that makes sense.

I see. I'm having a barrier put around my house, that I will charged to come back into.

In that case I'm voting no, and I encourage the rest of you to vote no too.

[Maria]

MrSpoon wrote;

I see. I'm having a barrier put around my house, that I will charged to come back into.

If the plan is to cut down on congestion then there's nothing wrong in that. Just don't travel by car!
Incidentally, I'm still undecided on this and haven't voted yet. I think I had a very enlightening conversation about this issue with a taxi driver the other night - though I did have a few problems with the phrase 'congestion charge' - but for the life of me I can't remember his words of wisdom now....

[Bob Jefferson]

Can I bribe you? Vote YES and I'll buy you a pint.

[MrSpoon]

If it's any consolation, I have been working hard to convince people to vote yes - I doubt I'll be able to get a hold of most of them before it's too late now!

I'm sorry but to put a barrier around peoples homes, and not exempt them seems totally unfair to me. I know many people (students) that live in the city centre, and though most will not be entering at times that will effect them, if they DO, this charge is unfair.

[Maria]

A free drink -now you're talking!
Any improvement from the 'No' campaign on Bob's bid?

And in my day students couldn't afford cars!!!

[ifstar]

MrSpoon wrote;

I see. I'm having a barrier put around my house, that I will charged to come back into.

If the plan is to cut down on congestion then there's nothing wrong in that. Just don't travel by car!
Incidentally, I'm still undecided on this and haven't voted yet. I think I had a very enlightening conversation about this issue with a taxi driver the other night - though I did have a few problems with the phrase 'congestion charge' - but for the life of me I can't remember his words of wisdom now....

Was your taxi driver for or against? Just wondering what someone whos job is dependant on using the roads thinks.

- Actually i can imagine they are for it - so that each time you pass through the congestion zone they will add £2 onto your fare and claim they haven't been through any that day before now!

[MrSpoon]

taxis are exempt.

[ifstar]

ah so they are - forgot about that

[Maria]

Wonder why taxis are exempt? How will me choosing to leave my car parked at home and travelling instead into and out of the city by taxi reduce congestion? Or is it the Council trying to help small businesses?

My taxi driver (if I remember correctly ) was arguing that there was little congestion in Edinburgh apart from at rush hour and that the Council were trying to create congestion. He then gave a fairly lengthy list of current road closures.

[Porty]

Wonder why taxis are exempt? How will me choosing to leave my car parked at home and travelling instead into and out of the city by taxi reduce congestion? Or is it the Council trying to help small businesses? .

Looking for an answer? Why not consult the works of Rabbie Burns?

[MrSpoon]

My taxi driver (if I remember correctly ) was arguing that there was little congestion in Edinburgh apart from at rush hour and that the Council were trying to create congestion. He then gave a fairly lengthy list of current road closures.

That's interesting - I had a similar discussion with a friend last night when we were out in his car - he's convinced the amount of road works at the moment are to convince of congestion. However - he did also say that as we're approaching the end of the tax year, the council is probably just using up its road budget so they can try and ask for more next year!

I think there's some truth in what your taxi driver was saying about congestion though - I get a bus at various points between 8 and 10 during the week, and the only place on my journey to town that really slows down is Portobello, and very rarely the end of London Road. It's my understanding that the worst road in Edinburgh for delays is the Bypass - which will probaby get MORE traffic due to congestion charges as its outside the second cordon! I know there are other hotspots in the early evening, but aren't most of these outside the city centre too? (ie Seafield, or out at the West going to the road bridge).

hmm..

[Lawrence Marshall]

Folk who talk about "barriers" round their property miss the point that for many people in this city the real barrier to getting about safely is the very amount of traffic that a congestion charge will hopefully reduce. Ask any older person living on the Portobello Road.
You're only going to be charged if you come in the way, from 0700-1000 through the outer cordon and from 0700-1830 through the inner cordon. Unlike London, you won't be charged simply for moving about. The maximum daily charge is £2 (you only pay once per day) and there's no charge anywhere at weekends.
Finally, we're asking people to think not only about themselves in this referendum but also about the common good of everyone and indeed the planet. £2 is a small price to pay in that regard to help take some small steps to sustaining "all things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small". No man is an island unto himself.

Lawrence

[nickchild]

Hi, I've been too upset to be reading message boards for a few days. I'm shocked at how many people seem to be thinking of the congestion charge referendum in terms that are limited to self-centred, party political, council's-always-a-baddy kind of things.

Whether the result is Yes or No, I'm far clearer now of one thing. What will be the death of our city and world will be the lack of (let's call it) citizenly thinking and voting, as opposed to selfish thinking and voting.

What I mean by citizenship here is to be thinking not about "how much I'm going to pay? it's not fair! they're conniving so-and-so's" but about what kind of city and world am I supporting for us all, including those who suffer and will benefit more than I do, or at least for my family and my descendents? If you want it put succinctly: Am I wrapping up poop as a gift for my own grandchildren?

Many questions of detail and imperfection in the congestion charge referendum process and the proposal are valid and have been explained and scrutinised more than any of us can. But they're nothing like as valid as this much bigger question of sustainability for all, given that this opportunity is unlikely to be repeated for years.

By the way, if you value your time and if you do have to use the car for one or several journeys across town in congestion charging hours (maximum £2), remember that you are paying MORE now than you will when the roads are cleared by the congestion charge. So even selfish logical thinking should get you voting Yes.

Yours in hope, fellow citizens?!
Citizen Nick

[MrSpoon]

Well, that's a certainly a mature way to deal with the issue - "lets call everyone voting 'no' selfish, by insulting their ability to make informed decisions I'm sure they're going to change their minds!"

[Sandra]

I would say Glasgow needs congestion charging a lot more than Edinburgh - it took us 3 hours to get to Glasgow yesterday

[Porty]

Finally, we're asking people to think not only about themselves in this referendum but also about the common good of everyone and indeed the planet.

Are there precedents for an electorate voting YES to an increase in taxation? I'm pretty sure Bath or Bristol Council tried an increase taxes referendum recently and lost 6 to 1. What on earth makes the Council think it will be different here?

£2 is a small price to pay in that regard to help take some small steps to sustaining "all things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small". No man is an island unto himself.Lawrence

No man is an Island??? How naive; when it come to tax; every man is an Island, it is the very foundation or principle taxation is based on and most "Islands" will act/vote accordingly.

The decision to referend took a City, Countrywide, if we accept what you say Planetary problem and turned it into personal taxation decision. The solution to Edinburgh's transport/congestion issue required decision making and leadership. The Council blinked and bottled it.

I totally agree with your observation regarding the need for taking a selfless stance. Let me push this concept back to you. How would you feel about a cliche tax?:D

[Lawrence Marshall]

It's rather sad when quoting a well-loved children's hymn and a line from one of John Donne's most famous poems results in the accusation of dealing in cliches.
For the record, here's the full poem - it contains lots of references to global warming and congestion charging if you care to look!

Lawrence

'No Man is an Island'

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.


Olde English Version
No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man
is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine;
if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe
is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as
well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine
owne were; any mans death diminishes me,
because I am involved in Mankinde;
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

MEDITATION XVII
Devotions upon Emergent Occasions
John Donne