Friday, 21 November 2008

VOTE NO!

VOTE AGAINST THE CONGESTION CHARGE


The Government says the money made from the congestion charge will pay for better public transport. IT WILL NOT.

Most of the money taken will be used to pay for its collection as was the case in London.
It will cost thousands of people who have to travel to Manchester to work many of whom must use their car as they do not live near bus or train stations, hundreds of pounds per year.

THEY ALREADY PAY £ MILLIONS PER YEAR IN TAXES. THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE PAID FOR OUT OF THAT!

There are billions of pounds available to banks to remedy their inefficiency and greed but working people, struggling to make ends meet are expected to pay even more taxes.
Money paid to the EU and in grants to places like India (awash with millionaires and with a space programme) but not enough for our crumbling infrastructure.
Many of the problems have been caused by bad decisions made by "experts" in the past who decided to separate work areas from residential areas making long distance commuting unavoidable.

They built the first railway in the world to Manchester without taxing the people. They should improve transport links without tax increases now.

If this mad scheme is passed-- DO YOU THINK YOU WILL GET WHAT THEY PROMISED?

NEVER, THEY COULD NOT EVEN BUILD THE DOME EFFICIENTLY.

VOTE NO TO THIS MAD SCHEME.

NEVER HAS THE NEED FOR THE BNP BEEN SO OBVIOUS.

5 comments:

Anti-gag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anti-gag said...

Great I finally get a chance to disagree with a posting on this blog. To tell the truth I was beginning to feel like a yes man!

Something has to be done about road congestion, but public transport is: slow, expensive, and inconvenient. The answer must be more investment in our rail and bus services. Now I’m not stupid, or naïve, enough to believe that all the cash from this scheme is destined for public transport, at least not if the scheming politicians have their way its not. However that just means that we need to get honest people elected, into City Hall, who can make sure this money goes where we were promised it would go, ie. public transport.

The answer is not new roads, because traffic simply expands to fill the road space available. The answer is an efficient and cheap (preferably free) public transport system. In the end surely everyone can see that that must work out cheaper for us all, and it will cut our carbon emissions in the process.

Bus positions and estimated time of arrival sent to your mobile phone. GPS phones that tell people, unfamiliar with the area, where the bus stops are and when to get off the bus when it reaches their destination. Smaller more frequent buses so as waiting times are no more than 5 mins between links on long journeys. No long wait at stops while people pay, a free service would mean average times at bus stops could be as low as 5 sec. Enough time for an average person to get on at the front, and two to get off at the centre door.

The future must be public transport, the days of everyone having their own car cannot last I’m afraid, and if implemented correctly (I know that’s a big ‘IF’) this could well be a good first step towards that.

Now I know I live in Lancaster and ride a push bike (I have a car but I use it only for long journeys), but there is already talk about doing the same thing here, so I will eventually be effected by this.

Anyway as I say it feels good to be able to disagree for once, great minds don’t always think alike, do they!

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

Who said anything about building new roads at the expense of public transport. Not me.
Much of the trouble has been caused by putting places of work a long way from people's homes.
You are alright if you work in a town centre but if you live in the suburbs and work in another suburb you can not get there by public transport unless you take two bus rides each way.
My daughter would need three journeys by bus to get to work, only five miles.
Yes improve public transport but not out of the low paid who need a car to get to work.
It's not one or the other like they would have you believe. You can have improved public transport without penalising the motorists.
It is to a degree self correcting as when congestion gets too severe people work closer to home.
I'M NOT AGAINST IMPROVING PUBLIC TRANSPORT, only paying extra for something I doubt will happen.

Anti-gag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anti-gag said...

On an entirely different subject.

Am I the first direct victim of the publication of the list?

Tonight I took my usual weekend stroll down into Lancaster, in order to visit my usual three public houses. one pint of bitter in each. Nothing wrong with that you may think, and of course you'd be right. After consuming my second pint I looked in to my normal last watering hole and (without having to ask) was served with my usual pint of bitter.

After about 20 mins of sitting quietly at the end of the bar, the landlady came up to me and made some comment about having a politician in tonight. I was suppressed as I've never spoken to her before except to order a drink. Next thing she says I'm barred, then makes a point of pointing me out to all the bar staff as such.

Now given I've been drinking in that pub (twice a week one pint each visit) for about five years now without any problems at all, is this just a coincidence or do I have the honour of being the first direct victim of the list?

Now I'm not saying being barred from a single pub, matches the Liverpool police officer who may lose his job, but small as this may be is it the first direct intimidation?


If so I really can hold my head up high!

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

PS.
Please do not think I'm in any way comparing losing your livelihood with being barred from an over priced and run down pub.

yaz