WITH THE TIF BIFFED 4-1
THE CfFPT DEBATES THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN GREATER MANCHESTER!



Despite the crushing defeat of the TIF Proposals, and the Labour Party, City Centre business led 'Yes' Campaign in last December's Referendum (which shamelessly squandered £millions of public money to try and get us to go along with something, which self-evidently, the overwhelming majority of the adult population have never wanted and still don't want!) and arguments to the contrary put about by the 'Yes" side prior to the announcement of the result, regarding the effect a 'No' vote would have, the debate on the future of public transport in Greater Manchester does indeed go on!

Moreover, rather than add salt to any wounds, the CfFPT consciously desires to build bridges with ALL those on the 'Yes' side of the recent debate around the TIF bid, who genuinely want, like us, to tackle the growing problem of traffic congestion, worsening air pollution and growing CO₂ emissions throughout Greater Manchester, but who (mistakenly in the opinion of many of us, sadly) wanted to do this via the introduction of a congestion charge, the entrenchment of de-regulation, and the continued lining of the pockets of the private bus and rail operators at the public's expense.

Take part in the debate!

Given that the latter line of March is now clearly 'dead in the water', we appeal to those individuals, organisations and groups, to take part, alongside us, in the development of a new, better, 'more realistic', and popularly endorsed, strategy for public transport throughout Greater Manchester.

Towards this end the CfFPT has continued the debate on this web site, and in conjunction with that, recently sponsored an Open Public Transport Forum at the Mechanics Institute in Manchester to which 50 people attended. (See Report on our Campaign News/Home page and Open Forum Report page.

Continuing the debate here, which was started by Stephen Hall in his article BIF the TIF - Vote no to the congestion charge! Say yes to free and better public transport! prior to the TIF Referendum result, Anne Power, Bruce Robinson, Alan Thornett, Roy Wilkes, John Somebody, Steph Prior, Claire O'Meara, Hugh Caffrey, Peter Franzen, Marc Starr and Philip Longdon all make contributions to our ongoing debate.

If you'd like to take part then all you need to do is simply e-mail your contribution to: manchester@freepublictransports.com

Voting No ".... will simply end the discussion!"

Very scaring addressing you all when I really don't know what your different thinkings are and why you have joined this group.

Sadly your NO vote, meaning NOT YET or NOT IN THIS FORMAT will simply end the whole discussion and the possibility of improvement.

YES, does give you the chance to modify things later.

PLEASE vote YES and continue the debate. Press for re-regulation, etc.

Best Wishes,

Anne Power

Diverse views on the Congestion Charge

In response to Anne Power:

There are diverse views on the congestion charge in the free transport campaign. We decided at our first meeting not to take a position as a campaign for precisely that reason.

We all agree on the ultimate goal of free, publicly owned transport and the need to campaign on that and that is the basis of the campaign. I hope therefore that you will feel able to be involved whatever your position on the referendum.  

My own position was that I did not feel able to vote either 'yes' or 'no' as I felt that neither camp offered a fair and viable solution to GM's transport problems. The 'Yes' camp wish to fund transport improvements by a regressive tax without being able to ensure affordable public transport or decent services while transport remained in private hands. (The Government already claims to be reregulating buses but their bill is full of loopholes.)

The dominant forces in the 'No' campaign are the anti-tax and motoring lobbies. There are different sections of business interests on both sides. A fuller version of my argument can be found at: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/11/22/campaign-free-publicly-owned-transport .

I spoiled my ballot paper making my view clear.  

The debate will continue whatever the outcome, I think.  

Best wishes,  

Bruce Robinson

Victory for 'Car Lobby'

I seem to have a minority view on the issue of congestion charging, so my reaction to the Manchester referendum result will be no surprise to most.

I think it was a mistake to campaign for a NO vote and the result has been a victory first and foremost for the car lobby.

My approach was support it and propose improvements. We should not oppose everything until we get the ultimate solution. We could have argued against the flat charge and in favour of higher charges for the big gas guzzlers and exemption for small low-emission cars along the lines that Livingstone was proposing in London, and which Johnson has now scrapped.

We could have argued for employers to pay the charge for workers within the zone. We could have argued for the kind of exemptions which are built into the London charge for residents, some categories of workers, and hospital attendance etc.

Getting the scheme defeated amounts at this stage to a green light to carry on polluting with all its consequences in CO₂ emissions and air pollution.

I fully agree with the alternative vision of a car-free Manchester with free public transport which those on the 'Left' of the NO campaign embraced, but I can't understand why this rush-hour congestion charge would have been an obstacle to campaigning for this. Surely it would be a small step in the right direction, and would have reduced congestion and CO₂ emissions at least to some extent?

Given the scale of the climate change problem I think we should in some cases support even modest and flawed improvements and argue for them to be made more effective and equitable. Of course they are not the solution even then. But they do improve things to some extent and they do not stop us putting our own far more radical vision forward, in fact they can be a platform for doing so.

Alan Thornett

Address the root cause of the problem

Despite a massive propaganda effort by the 'Yes' campaign, the people of Greater Manchester have rejected New Labour's proposals by a majority of almost four to one. 

What the voters have rejected is not the suggestion that public transport needs improving, it is the arrogant take-it-or-leave-it approach which tried to blackmail us into accepting a congestion charge as the price for any improvements.
 
The voters are well aware that the solution to the city's transport problems is not to throw billions of pounds at the private operators, money we would have been paying back via the congestion charge for decades to come. 

Instead we need to address the root cause of the problem, which is privatization and deregulation.  The sooner we face up to that reality and bring public transport back into public ownership, the sooner we will be able to develop a public transport system that is fit for the people of Greater Manchester - one that is run as a true public service rather than as a source of private profit.

Roy Wilkes

More contributions to the debate on the future of Public Transport in Greater Manchester