Manchester Clean Air Zone

Author
Discussion

Blue383

Original Poster:

88 posts

123 months

Friday 24th February 2023
quotequote all
Back in 2008 Greater Manchester faced the introduction of congestion charging but having been put to a referendum it was massively defeated by every local area across the region.

Does anyone know how this referendum was brought about or by whom? I know a number of large business like Kelloggs and Peel Holding opposed the congestion charge but how did we get the city to hold a referendum?

Were now looking at a Clean Air Zone, effectively the same congestion charge but with a new name, despite having said a decisive 'NO' last time.

With the rise of ULEZ and 15 Minute Cities is there a way of making local government put things to local residents?

Julian Scott

3,334 posts

30 months

Friday 24th February 2023
quotequote all
Blue383 said:
Back in 2008 Greater Manchester faced the introduction of congestion charging but having been put to a referendum it was massively defeated by every local area across the region.

Does anyone know how this referendum was brought about or by whom? I know a number of large business like Kelloggs and Peel Holding opposed the congestion charge but how did we get the city to hold a referendum?

Were now looking at a Clean Air Zone, effectively the same congestion charge but with a new name, despite having said a decisive 'NO' last time.

With the rise of ULEZ and 15 Minute Cities is there a way of making local government put things to local residents?
It was Manchester City Council led at the time, although supported by AGMA, in return for a £bn investment to expand the Metrolink tram network.

MCC was, and still is, heavily political, with such 'red' dominate, it was almost mafia like in operation. Around 200 influential business however clubbed together and formed an action group, United City to oppose. They proposed a referendum. Sir Howard and his poisonous socialist side-kick, Sir Richard, thought they would win. They didn't.

It's now the Metro Mayor, Andy Burnham. Equally as corrupt and poisonous as Richard Lees, but he has a power to do what he likes now.

Blue383

Original Poster:

88 posts

123 months

Friday 24th February 2023
quotequote all
Julian Scott said:
Blue383 said:
Back in 2008 Greater Manchester faced the introduction of congestion charging but having been put to a referendum it was massively defeated by every local area across the region.

Does anyone know how this referendum was brought about or by whom? I know a number of large business like Kelloggs and Peel Holding opposed the congestion charge but how did we get the city to hold a referendum?

Were now looking at a Clean Air Zone, effectively the same congestion charge but with a new name, despite having said a decisive 'NO' last time.

With the rise of ULEZ and 15 Minute Cities is there a way of making local government put things to local residents?
It was Manchester City Council led at the time, although supported by AGMA, in return for a £bn investment to expand the Metrolink tram network.

MCC was, and still is, heavily political, with such 'red' dominate, it was almost mafia like in operation. Around 200 influential business however clubbed together and formed an action group, United City to oppose. They proposed a referendum. Sir Howard and his poisonous socialist side-kick, Sir Richard, thought they would win. They didn't.

It's now the Metro Mayor, Andy Burnham. Equally as corrupt and poisonous as Richard Lees, but he has a power to do what he likes now.
Their question is how did they get the referendum? Were they forced legally or politically? And who led it. Its time for them to come out of retirement.

DonkeyApple

58,043 posts

175 months

Saturday 25th February 2023
quotequote all
It'll require completely different legal arguments this time.

Unfortunately, pretty much all the devolved centres have become extreme left hubs and the 'clean air' path is the fastest way to deliver total vehicle monitoring, vehicle taxation, big revenue increases and the end of private vehicle ownership.

Pre Covid you'd have thought yourself mad to think that owner a car fell into the 'property is theft' mantra but among some people the freedom of movement is the freedom of thinking and the freedom from oppression.

No one in their right minds doesn't want urban air to be as clean as it can be and reducing congestion and switching to EV are very sensible objectives but that's not what the devolved centres are up to. The initial implementation of the road charging infrastructure is just the stepping stone to the final solution.

It's going to be quite interesting to see why of these centres survive such radical political restructuring and which end up bust.

One imagines that London will do fine as there is the eternal revenue of business but we can already see Wales and Scotland faltering as it's too easy for businesses to relocate or not locate in the first instance than deal with the issues.

I suspect Birmingham and Bristol will be OK also but Manchester seems too small and already build on an immensely weak foundation of debt. One sometimes wonders if the only thing holding up the house of cards is having 22 football players instead of 11? biggrin

Julian Scott

3,334 posts

30 months

Saturday 25th February 2023
quotequote all
Blue383 said:
Julian Scott said:
Blue383 said:
Back in 2008 Greater Manchester faced the introduction of congestion charging but having been put to a referendum it was massively defeated by every local area across the region.

Does anyone know how this referendum was brought about or by whom? I know a number of large business like Kelloggs and Peel Holding opposed the congestion charge but how did we get the city to hold a referendum?

Were now looking at a Clean Air Zone, effectively the same congestion charge but with a new name, despite having said a decisive 'NO' last time.

With the rise of ULEZ and 15 Minute Cities is there a way of making local government put things to local residents?
It was Manchester City Council led at the time, although supported by AGMA, in return for a £bn investment to expand the Metrolink tram network.

MCC was, and still is, heavily political, with such 'red' dominate, it was almost mafia like in operation. Around 200 influential business however clubbed together and formed an action group, United City to oppose. They proposed a referendum. Sir Howard and his poisonous socialist side-kick, Sir Richard, thought they would win. They didn't.

It's now the Metro Mayor, Andy Burnham. Equally as corrupt and poisonous as Richard Lees, but he has a power to do what he likes now.
Their question is how did they get the referendum? Were they forced legally or politically? And who led it. Its time for them to come out of retirement.
Politically, but agreed to through Richard Lees' arrogance. IIRC, it was a condition of the funding (the referendum to get the charge). Ended up being a false proposition, as they got the funding anyway.


Terminator X

15,987 posts

210 months

Saturday 25th February 2023
quotequote all
I will simply stay away from any cities or towns implementing such nonsense. If everyone did the same it would soon stop.

TX.

Julian Scott

3,334 posts

30 months

Saturday 25th February 2023
quotequote all
DonkeyApple said:
It'll require completely different legal arguments this time.

Unfortunately, pretty much all the devolved centres have become extreme left hubs and the 'clean air' path is the fastest way to deliver total vehicle monitoring, vehicle taxation, big revenue increases and the end of private vehicle ownership.

Pre Covid you'd have thought yourself mad to think that owner a car fell into the 'property is theft' mantra but among some people the freedom of movement is the freedom of thinking and the freedom from oppression.

No one in their right minds doesn't want urban air to be as clean as it can be and reducing congestion and switching to EV are very sensible objectives but that's not what the devolved centres are up to. The initial implementation of the road charging infrastructure is just the stepping stone to the final solution.

It's going to be quite interesting to see why of these centres survive such radical political restructuring and which end up bust.

One imagines that London will do fine as there is the eternal revenue of business but we can already see Wales and Scotland faltering as it's too easy for businesses to relocate or not locate in the first instance than deal with the issues.

I suspect Birmingham and Bristol will be OK also but Manchester seems too small and already build on an immensely weak foundation of debt. One sometimes wonders if the only thing holding up the house of cards is having 22 football players instead of 11? biggrin
Manchester seems too small?