Congestion charge referendum - can you vote?

[Porty]

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

Personally, I find it sad when in open debate an elected representative is asked a direct and legitimate question on a vitally important subject. All he has to offer is the words of a dead poet and one line out of a childrens hymn. Let's try again:

Lawrence Marshall wrote:
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?

Just to clarify matters, this is not personal, I believe you do a decent job. Whilst it is true that you are one of my neighbours its also true that you pick up a nice salary for being a Custodian of Edinburgh. Can I venture one more question? If the Vote is NO will you consider COEC has done the best it could have done for Edinburgh's future?

Please remember I voted YES.

[Lawrence Marshall]

I would say that a vote in an election indicates public support for the general direction of a party's policies. It indicates a balance in favour. What an election does not allow is a vote on any particular policy. That's why referenda are held - they give a much clearer view of public support or otherwise on any particular proposal.
It's certainly true that referenda have not generally been part of the UK political process - unlike, say, Switzerland or California. In the latter, for instance, so frequent are they that they have so constrained the room for manoeuvre of any incoming administration that some argue they have diminished the whole point of the election process. Hitler too, of course, was also rather fond of referenda, pandering to the basest of instincts in the general public.
So, no, I'm not all that keen on referenda but equally I can see their efficacy in clearly demonstrating the views of the electorate on any particular issue. And this one was contentious enough for us to agree to single it out.

Lawrence

[ali]

Hitler too, of course, was also rather fond of referenda, pandering to the basest of instincts in the general public.
Lawrence

Well, thats your answer there, Porty.
Laurence and his pals have allowed the base instincts of the general public (selfishness, greed and "not in our backyard") to be counted in a referendum.

Laurence - this is not personal either - I too believe you do a good job. In fact you helped resolve a problem we had with a neighbour but I wonder what made the council think they could win a vote like this - what advice were you getting and from whom re the winnability of this??

[Porty]

I would say that a vote in an election indicates public support for the general direction of a party's policies. It indicates a balance in favour. What an election does not allow is a vote on any particular policy. That's why referenda are held - they give a much clearer view of public support or otherwise on any particular proposal.
Lawrence

Thanks for responding. I did grasp the difference between a referendum and an election. Its interesting that you are not a fan of referenda but its not really relevant.

As far as I understand the requirement is for a demonstration of clear public support, not specifically for a referendum. Your inference is that something so contentious it requires a referendum would get overlooked in a general Manifesto. In other words a dissenter could effectively say "Whilst, I accept that Labour have a majority based on their most recent Manifesto,which contained a definite commitment to congestion charging, most of their Voters did not realise or support the congestion charge"

I guess where I am coming from is this; the requirement is to demonstrate "clear public support" and the requirement is here in Scotland.(You have moved from Rabbie and poetry to Hitler and California).
Question 1
A party is elected on its Manifesto. If the Labour Party's Manifesto had included a promise that congestion charge would be introduced and Labour subsequently secured an overall majority on the COEC. Do you believe that this would have demonstrated sufficient "Clear Public Support" for the congestion charge? Yes or No

Question 2

If the vote is NO then do you believe COEC have done the best that they could have done for Edinburgh's Transport future? Yes or No

A simple Yes or No is all i am looking for. BTW how come its acceptable for you to ask us for a YES or NO but you appear to find it so difficult to reciprocate?

[Lawrence Marshall]

Question 1: No. An election doesn't deliver a verdict on one specific policy. In that respect it's not "clear" with respect to that policy. There's also a danger that, if it does, the election itself has become a referendum rather than a verdict on the multiplicity of issues - sometimes conflicting - with respect to which political decisions must be made.

Question 2: Yes. Nothing's perfect but what's on offer through a "Yes" vote is a sight better than what the base strategy - the result of a "No" vote - will deliver.

Lawrence

[Lawrence Marshall]

In response to Ali, we didn't receive any official advice as to the winnability of a referendum- but none of us thought it would be easy.
Perhaps we thereby displayed a touching naivety in our belief that the citizens of Edinburgh would put the common good above personal self-interest. We'll see.
If the vote is "No" then we'll have to accept that - but it will be hard to level the charge at the Labour Group that we've been "craven" with respect to this particular matter.

Lawrence

[Porty]

Question 1: No. An election doesn't deliver a verdict on one specific policy. In that respect it's not "clear" with respect to that policy. There's also a danger that, if it does, the election itself has become a referendum rather than a verdict on the multiplicity of issues - sometimes conflicting - with respect to which political decisions must be made.

Now you are being plain silly. Gaining majority representation on a Manifesto IS demonstrating public support for the policies in that Manifesto. Otherwise what's the point of having a Manifesto? During your political career have you ever encountered a complaint against any political party for meeting its Manifesto promises?

As for question 2, Lawrence you can’t have thought this through properly. Just to reiterate the question was:

Question 2

If the vote is NO then do you believe COEC have done the best that they could have done for Edinburgh's Transport future? Yes or No

To which you responded:

Question 2: Yes.

I assume you realise that a NO vote will mean that the Council cannot introduce a congestion charge and will therefore have very limited funds to redress Edinburgh’s transport issues. That congestion charging will be off theagenda, quite possibly forever.

Yet the Council have spent bundles on feasibility, your party has had the congestion charge as a cornerstone policy in both of the last elections, Nick Child is too upset to read message boards and YOU THINK THE BEST YOU COULD HAVE DONE WAS NOT INTRODUCE THE CONGESTION CHARGE!!! If it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable.

Finally, as I am now content that I’m obviously not going to get anywhere with you on this issue, I must rest with comment on what you describe is your party’s “touching naivetyâ€Â

[wangi]

I assume you realise that a NO vote will mean that the Council cannot introduce a congestion charge and will therefore have very limited funds to redress Edinburgh’s transport issues.

Although of course there is a real issue about what a £2 charge will bring in...

Anyway, I think a no result is not a bad result. Folk on the main have made quite a considered judgement over a lot of points and have (i think) came to the conlusion that this scheme isn't the right one. I think that's quite a success to get the public putting in that much thought!

It would have been better if this was a clear yes or no vote. I think the fact that it has gown into such a discussion probably implies than much more consulation should have taken place before hand. Rightly or wrongly people are asking the questions now that should have been asked before a vote was taken - so obviously there wasn't enough chance before hand (and i'm sure folk can come back and say "this was done", "that was done" - but obviously not enough was done).

[Porty]

Although of course there is a real issue about what a £2 charge will bring in...Anyway, I think a no result is not a bad result.

And as I said in my initial foray into this debate, I don't feel I understand enough about the issue to really know whether the congestion charge is a the best solution or not. I voted yes because something needs to change. And I was prepared to be guided by my elected representatives. Who ARE totally convinced that it is the way forward and even although they have a majority, seemingly cannot deliver.

(I have not quoted the rest of your post but i broadly agree with the content)

[Bob Jefferson]

We usually have the post-match analysis after the game has taken place, but according to the polls it's all academic now anyway. I'm almost as despondent as Nick. I feel I've lost some of my faith in my fellow citizens, but at the same time I'm not very surprised.

As the result becomes clearer, Lawrence has changed adjectives in describing the Council from 'brave' to 'naive'. I agree. In retrospect it was naive to believe that the general public would vote YES. As Porty pointed out, people do not vote for higher taxation nor indeed anything that they perceive will cost them money. That's why the NHS is held together with agency workers and jumble sales. That's why we have to turn to the private sector to build our schools.

As one of my colleagues said the other day, 'It's like asking turkeys to vote for Xmas.' End of thought process.

Couple the problem of asking people to pay money for something that (they believe) presently costs them nothing with the even more alien notion of using public transport rather than their cars and you have mission impossible.

So could the Labour Group have made congestion charging a keystone policy and got themselves elected with a mandate to introduce it? I don't think so. Remember they have an overall majority of just 2 in the Council. I've already stated that I think this was too important an issue to leave to the public to decide, but it would be rather difficult for any Council to impose such a scheme against the wishes of 66% of its citizens (if the polls are to be believed.)

As the situation inevitably deteriorates over the coming years and all our chickens come home to roost (oops, I've incurred cliché tax) some of us will be able to say 'I told you so', but it won't be much consolation.

[Lawrence Marshall]

... thanks, Bob - though the analogy I would choose isn't "turkeys voting for Christmas" but rather ostriches with their heads in the sand. Did you know that an ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain!

Right, off to get some sleep - I start work at 0500 tomorrow morning. Yes, you can get public transport at that hour. Indeed, a fortnight ago I started work at 0400 and got the bus in. I rather like it when people argue that we need better public transport for shift workers and then quote me hours that I regard as positively social!

Lawrence

[MrSpoon]

*sigh* - I've changed my mind again, I'll vote yes for all the good it'll do. Should probably send it off before I forget though..

[Porty]

So could the Labour Group have made congestion charging a keystone policy and got themselves elected with a mandate to introduce it? I don't think so. (

Im sorry to admit it but I agree Bob.

Prior to the decision to hold a referendumb I had faith that Labour passionately believed in the congestion charge, they possessed the political skills, belief, intelligence and the facts to persuade the general public, the majority of whom were already supporters, to follow them.
They were significantly helped by the requirement to only show "clear public support" not a majority, not a referendum, just clear support.

It now seems, and we don't even have to wait for hindsight, that they themselves did not believe in their abilities. They were not prepared to stand up and be counted. Which makes me wonder whether they were ever prepared to make the sort of personal sacrifice that thay have asked the general public to make. On the evidence presented, clearly not.

Of course there is one other major difference between trying to get a policy through on a Manifesto and holding a referendum. With a Manifesto you may fail, regroup, modify the policy, wait for cirumstances to change (Like congestion getting worse), then try again and if need be again. Eventually if you believe enough and can have the ability to make a persuasive case you will succeed. A referendum is a non return valve. You lose,you have had your chance, you are out of here. . Whether its bravery, naievety or stupidity, you have failed. You are failures. And the City of which you are Custodians is still screwed.

[Lawrence Marshall]

... you know, reading some of the postings above I get the feeling that these folk would probably even blame Jesus for getting himself crucified. Mr Spoon should at least appreciate that one!
... or, since it was St. Valentine's Day yesterday, perhaps it would be more appropriate to reflect: "better to have lost in love than never to have loved at all" - Annie Lennox, I think, but I'm sure she was taking the quote from somewhere else.
My grateful thanks to all those who did vote "Yes". I still hope that we're the majority.

Lawrence

[Porty]

Lawrence,

As previously stated I have given up debating this issue with you. However, I do wish you well and success in the future. I have identified an area where I feel you could make great improvements. See if you can get my drift?



Subject A) Has not had a successful recording career, however:
"Ken Livingstone has staked his mayorship indeed his whole political future on the charge. He has successfully introduced a congestion charging scheme in London. Has become a revered and respected political figure in doing so.. He has significantly improved London Transportation."- Quote from The BBC



Subject B) "After spending time away with her family, Annie embarked on a very successful solo career beginning with the release of her first album 'Diva' in 1992. A notable performance for Annie was in New York in 1995, when she performed songs in Central Park - with material from 'Medusa' - her second album of covers, and of course 'Diva'. She has just returned with a brand new album titled 'Bare'.

"Annie has had quite a lot of hits with a variety of different acts but has no experience in congestion charging implementation.

[Lawrence Marshall]

Porty,
I bet Annie Lennox is glad about that!
I've always thought it would be great for her - and possibly also Dave Stewart - to see Princes Street really congested at Hogmanay while singing out the Auld Year below the castle at the Ross Band Stand. I'd certainly buy a ticket. I've suggested this on a few occasions to Council officials but so far it hasn't happened!
Thanks for your good wishes - much appreciated.

Lawrence

[Porty]

I've suggested this on a few occasions to Council officials but so far it hasn't happened!.... Lawrence

Enough already..

[Lawrence Marshall]

I thought that this response to someone who was unable to vote in the referendum as his name wasn't on the edited register might be of interest. It's all very legally constrained this referendum business!

Lawrence

* * * * *

Dear Mr

TRANSPORT EDINBURGH REFERENDUM – COMPLAINT

Your e-mail of 8 February 2005 , in which you indicate your concerns about the arrangements for the Transport Edinburgh Referendum has been passed to me, today, for attention. In particular, you raise issues about the use of the Electoral Register for the referendum.

The Chief Executive reported to the Council on 22 January and 29 April 2004, on referendum arrangements. These reports and the minutes of the meetings are available on the Council’s website www.edinburgh.gov.uk by following the Committee Papers on Line link on the Home page. The first of the reports explains fully the reasoning behind the use of the edited Electoral Register and outlines the legal position as defined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is the opinion of Senior Counsel that the proposed Transport Edinburgh Referendum is not a referendum in terms of the 2000 Act and that the Council may, therefore, use only the edited Register for the purpose of undertaking the referendum.

A further report on detailed arrangements was approved by the Council on 9 December 2004.

I can provide paper copies of these reports should you wish. Please let me know.

Ideally, the Council would have wished to use the full Electoral Register for the purpose of undertaking the referendum but, once you have had an opportunity to study the reports in detail, you will understand that this is simply not permissible. The use of the edited Electoral Register was, therefore, considered to be the most democratic and up to date list for including an elector in the referendum.

For similar data protection reasons, legal advice is that it is not permissible to access Council Tax records as a means of writing to households about the referendum.

Turning to the steps to make information available to those voters who are not included in the edited Electoral Register, the September 2004 edition of Edinburgh Outlook, which is delivered to every household in Edinburgh, carried information about the Transport Edinburgh proposals and the need for electors who had opted out of the edited Register to request that their names be added into the Referendum List. A cut-out coupon and helpline number were included to assist with this and a Freepost address was created for applications. This information was repeated in the December issue of the paper.

A substantial publicity campaign encouraging registered electors who had opted out of the edited Register to apply to be included in the Referendum List was undertaken during December and early January. This included adverts in the paid for and free newspapers with the largest circulations in Edinburgh, a substantial (118 slots) advertising campaign on Radio Forth and 20 full-sized advertisements on billboards in locations such as the car park adjacent to Ocean Terminal. Three hundred thousand (300,000) leaflets were distributed to libraries, schools, offices, doctors' surgeries and major employers within the city and information has also been available on the Transport Edinburgh section of the Council’s website. It is felt that every reasonable effort has been made to draw the issue to the attention of electors and I cannot agree with your view that this has been biased.

Consideration was given to writing to all those voters not on the edited Register but this is not permitted in terms of the legislation, since the full Electoral Register can only be used for the purposes of a statutory election or referendum.

I recognise that you are very disappointed at not being able to vote but I trust that this letter clarifies the position for you. Please contact me on 0131 529 4550 if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely

Alex Thomson
Depute Returning Officer

[CatzVP]

This included adverts in the paid for and free newspapers with the largest circulations in Edinburgh, a substantial (118 slots) advertising campaign on Radio Forth and 20 full-sized advertisements on billboards in locations such as the car park adjacent to Ocean Terminal. Three hundred thousand (300,000) leaflets were distributed to libraries, schools, offices, doctors' surgeries and major employers within the city

Sounds expensive, who paid for all this??

[Porty]

Sounds expensive, who paid for all this??

Well, I guess that would be the good citizens of Edinburgh. I believe the whole campaign was organised by the electorial arm of Dunne and Christmas, who will not have come cheap. Im guessing a couple of Million.

Actually, reading the letter above, makes me feel even worse about the decision to have a referendum. It was so uneccessary.

[CatzVP]

Well, I guess that would be the good citizens of Edinburgh. I believe the whole campaign was organised by the electorial arm of Dunne and Christmas, who will not have come cheap.

Actually, reading the letter above, makes me feel even worse about the decision to have a referendum. It was so uneccessary.

I heartily agree Porty, but I’m sure in their wisdom the council would have market tested a cross selection of random citizens and evaluated if this referendum would be worthwhile and cost effective ............or maybe not
Perhaps they should just make the decision next time, and be brave enough to take the consequence whether its good or bad.

[Porty]

Perhaps they should just make the decision next time, and be brave enough to take the consequence whether its good or bad.

That's fightin' talk Catz, expect a Eurythmics backlash sometime soon.

[CatzVP]

That's fightin' talk Catz, expect a Eurythmics backlash sometime soon.

Im hoping to get hit with a Jane Wiedlin : Rush Hour slapping

[CatzVP]

By the way..... from someone who pays tolls which started off as 2 quid ($4.30 a day) this is how they are now broken down.... 3 years on..



I once thought tolls were a great idea, I found out they are just a cash cow! Video Charge????? Account Fee????

I'm not saying this would happen in Edinburgh...but it wasn't meant to happen here and this is now a one way fee!

[Porty]

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!!!!

Ali, I have been considering this hypothesis. I don't think its totally accurate but there is a big bit of me hoping that there has been a bit of political strategising. What do you think of this:

Election 2003: no way Labour confident enough to put congestion charge in manifesto. They put in referendum, which is consultative. They win the referendum then all well and good. They lose the referendum, but not by much,say it was purely consultative and clear (not majority)support is demonstrated. Later they put forward a compelling argument for going ahead anyway and go for it. Making sure they do so at the maximum time ahead of the next elections, allowing anger to dissipate. This would take balls (which may be a flaw in my theory) but is easier to do when one's back is up against the wall.

Maybe I have been too fatalistic about a NO vote?

[ali]

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!!!!

Ali, I have been considering this hypothesis. I don't think its totally accurate but there is a big bit of me hoping that there has been a bit of political strategising. What do you think of this:

Election 2003: no way Labour confident enough to put congestion charge in manifesto. They put in referendum, which is consultative. They win the referendum then all well and good. They lose the referendum, but not by much,say it was purely consultative and clear (not majority)support is demonstrated. Later they put forward a compelling argument for going ahead anyway and go for it. Making sure they do so at the maximum time ahead of the next elections, allowing anger to dissipate. This would take balls (which may be a flaw in my theory) but is easier to do when one's back is up against the wall.

Maybe I have been too fatalistic about a NO vote?

The problem here is what constitutes "clear support". Wouldn't that have to be at least a majority of the votes cast?

- if 100,000 people vote and its say 52% to 48% "yes", then is that clear??

- is it any clearer if 300,000 people vote?

Hard to see how they could argue that they had clear support if the vote was 52% to 48% "no".

I too hope that the polls are wrong - its been just too depressing to read the Scotsman and Evening News letters pages in the last few weeks. Maybe I've got a case of mild "childitis" and I'll give up reading forums and boards all together - even POL!!!

I too hope that we'll get a pleasant surprise next week but remember all those people who told the pollsters that they could never vote tory in the 80's and early 90's. I think the same thing could be happening here and it could be even worse for the "yes" campaign than the pollsters are predicting.

[Porty]

The problem here is what constitutes "clear support". Wouldn't that have to be at least a majority of the votes cast?

As Ken Livngstone might say "Zat is ze question".

The choice of words "clear support" is interesting. As you point out; it doesn't say "Majority" indeed it is non-specific. The Scottish Parlaiment probably want to make it relatively easy for Local Council's to introduce hypothectated taxes. Therefore use loose terminology. They understand the vagaries of taxation refendums so they don't force councils to have a referendum, as it will likely be lost. (Go figure?)

Allow clear support to be demonstrated by other means. Could clear support could just be volume support?

[wangi]

All getting somewhat away from the issue at hand

Anyway, what does everyone think of the traffic this week, you know with the schools out? The bus certainly has been a lot better. But then again there's all the road works (but not on my way to work).

Is the solution to force all kids to out-of-town boarding schools?

[ali]

the solution might be to just get them to walk to school!!!!

[Porty]

the solution might be to just get them to walk to school!!!!

The best idea yet on transport and health. How the hell do we implement it?

[ali]

the solution might be to just get them to walk to school!!!!

The best idea yet on transport and health. How the hell do we implement it?

why not ask the people in a referendum?

[Porty]

Lets get Dunne and Christmas on the case.

[CatzVP]

We could set up the "Referendum Party" The Party for the People!!

It would save a fortune in expenditure....It could be one person asking everyone what they think!

"Vote Referendum....You know its a worthwhile vote".... and if you don't, we can have a referendum on it, to see if its worthwhile!!

[Porty]

"Vote Referendum....You know its a worthwhile vote".... and if you don't, we can have a referendum on it, to see if its worthwhile!!

Sounds good but we can't just let anybody joiin can we? We need to set a task or get some commitment. How about asking everybody, in say; Edinburgh, if they would like to vote for a £200 annnual tax to get into the the Referendum Party ? YES or NO.

What do you think The Tourists would have said about that?

[CatzVP]

What do you think The Tourists would have said about that?

I dont want to commit and answer that one Porty....I think we should have a referendum, to see what we think the tourists would say