Maybe I am being naive, but the concept of 'a consultation' suggests that something is being investigated without there being pre-ordained aim. Not, however, when it comes to City Hall and the Mayor of London.
The 'consultation' is about an exciting new class war attack on folk fortunate enough to drive large and / or luxurious cars. Not that it is phrased thus, it is all about CO2 emissions, which Livingstone has determined to have caused the recent floods. Uh-huh.
There is, as one would expect, some rather poor reasoning at work in the press release, and some fairly masterful sleights of hand. The attack on the owners of these cars is justified by their only being driven by '8% of Londoners'. Given that the congestion charge zone covers Westminster and K&C, the honest figure to dig out would be the percentage of these chariots of CO2 owned by people living in those boroughs, but as the average Westminsterian / Kensingtonian probably drives something a little further up the food chain than a 10 year old Toyota that would not allow him to produce a figure of 8% for the rest of us to place, metaphorically speaking, in the stocks and pelt with unread copies of 'The Londoner'. Although doubtless he would love to do that too.
And it is 'argued' further, "Some of the worst examples produce two or three times as much greenhouse gases as the average family car". Per mile? Per day? Per whatever? If I have been taxed for the privilege of driving a car in town, having once paid the tax there is absolutely no disincentive to spend all day in it, rather than just use it for the originally planned scoot to the shops.
And there's more: "The proposals are part of the Mayor's strategy to do everything possible to reduce pollution and London's contribution to climate change - a top priority as the recent catastrophic weather has brought home".
"Everything possible"? Given that by Livingstone's own admission less than half of the non-aviation transport produced CO2 comes from cars, what is he doing about his ghastly bendy buses, for instance? And that is before he targets people for breathing out, plants for photosynthesising, etc etc.
And then compare this statement: "The Mayor will keep an open mind on the proposals until he has considered the responses to the consultation".
With this: "The highest CO2 emitting cars - like some of the so-called Chelsea tractors, high powered sports cars and luxury executive cars - can produce twice as much carbon dioxide emissions as the kind of car driven by the average Londoner. By proposing these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact on the environment of their choice of car".
Any bets on Livingstone deciding not to charge extra for some vehicles? I'll happily take any money anyone wants to stake.
The 'consultation' is about an exciting new class war attack on folk fortunate enough to drive large and / or luxurious cars. Not that it is phrased thus, it is all about CO2 emissions, which Livingstone has determined to have caused the recent floods. Uh-huh.
There is, as one would expect, some rather poor reasoning at work in the press release, and some fairly masterful sleights of hand. The attack on the owners of these cars is justified by their only being driven by '8% of Londoners'. Given that the congestion charge zone covers Westminster and K&C, the honest figure to dig out would be the percentage of these chariots of CO2 owned by people living in those boroughs, but as the average Westminsterian / Kensingtonian probably drives something a little further up the food chain than a 10 year old Toyota that would not allow him to produce a figure of 8% for the rest of us to place, metaphorically speaking, in the stocks and pelt with unread copies of 'The Londoner'. Although doubtless he would love to do that too.
And it is 'argued' further, "Some of the worst examples produce two or three times as much greenhouse gases as the average family car". Per mile? Per day? Per whatever? If I have been taxed for the privilege of driving a car in town, having once paid the tax there is absolutely no disincentive to spend all day in it, rather than just use it for the originally planned scoot to the shops.
And there's more: "The proposals are part of the Mayor's strategy to do everything possible to reduce pollution and London's contribution to climate change - a top priority as the recent catastrophic weather has brought home".
"Everything possible"? Given that by Livingstone's own admission less than half of the non-aviation transport produced CO2 comes from cars, what is he doing about his ghastly bendy buses, for instance? And that is before he targets people for breathing out, plants for photosynthesising, etc etc.
And then compare this statement: "The Mayor will keep an open mind on the proposals until he has considered the responses to the consultation".
With this: "The highest CO2 emitting cars - like some of the so-called Chelsea tractors, high powered sports cars and luxury executive cars - can produce twice as much carbon dioxide emissions as the kind of car driven by the average Londoner. By proposing these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact on the environment of their choice of car".
Any bets on Livingstone deciding not to charge extra for some vehicles? I'll happily take any money anyone wants to stake.
10 comments:
I have a Band G car, a Fiat Croma. Athough it is by no means a "Chelsea Tractor", just a "D" sector, (Mondeo size), family saloon with a 2.2 litre petrol engine, because it has an automatic gear box it just creeps into the top tax bracket with 229 g/km. However, had I chosen the manual version it would have been taxed at Band "F" with emissions of 209 g/km,. Outwardly, both cars are identical.
I already pay £95 a year more tax than I would if I drove the manual version, and use marginally more petrol.
So, Red Ken wishes to charge me £16 a day more because of the automatic box. WTF this has to do with reducing traffic congestion on the streets of London I do not know.
What is the Deputy High Commissioner of India doing on the list?
Good work i am a Biris supporter andI am going to put you on my blogroll . Your blog is going to be imoprtant and any help in throwing some mud back at the unholy one would be great
This doesn't surprise me. It was always thus at the GLA under RedKen. He is still obviously following his favoured model of democratic centralism as in the former Soviet Union.
What's the chance of a link to my new site about Ken then chaps?
http://redken4mayor2008.blogspot.com/
Steven, I would if I could, but Serf owns the blog and he has gone AWOL...
Oh well. I'll get googlebombing when I can be arsed then.
I just saw his site, I see what you mean, you guys need to reorganise.
The era of cyberwar is upon us! (and it looks like fun)
I drive a Toyota Landcruiser Amazon. I use it for my business, for which I already pay £1000 PER WEEK in non-domestic rates, plus the congestion charge. I need a vehicle which can carry 7-8 people or large amounts of goods, or a combination of the two. No other single vehicle fits the bill. Believe me, before buying the vehicle I went to the London Motor Show and sat in every other likely candidate. When Ken rails on about 4x4s being the "most polluting vehicles" does he take PAYLOAD into account? what I can carry in one trip in my Landcruiser would take umpteen journeys in a Hybrid Prius and would be utterly impossible in a G-Wizz. as I understand it, the Congestion Charge was originally about CONGESTION. But now that congestion is pretty much back to it's pre-congestion charge level, all of a sudden it's about pollution. Either way, Ken's proposal of allowing small cars to drive into London for free is utterly ridiculous. The number of cars on the road will increase, and with it the amount of congestion. From an emissions point of view, drivers of Ford Fiestas and Minis are the very people who could easily take the bus, as indeed I often do when I'm travelling alone. As other contributors have mentioned, those who think they're sitting pretty and gloating over these proposed measure need just wait until Ken moves on to demonise the next class of vehicle. "First they came for the 4x4's......."
the routemaster saga says it all about the ghastly dehumanised moron one of the ghastly dehumanised morons beloved cattle trucks gives 4 mpg a routemaster gives 8/9 mpg and thats before you have the missfortune to travel on a cattle truck.
I own a classic 4x4 a 1952 series one swb softtop landrover which is zero rated for roadtax but thanks to the ghastly dehumanised moron latest tax scam the clean air charge t have to pay twice as well as increased kenjestion charge simply because i choose to own a 4x4 and dont even think about getting me going about the 2012 Stratford freak show and its costs that the ghastly dehumanised moron has saddled the london tax payer with
Post a Comment