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



Continued from our main Debate page.

Putting the record straight

In response to Hugh Caffrey:

I was a Wigan Councillor for six years and also a member of the GMPTA for five years up to May 2008. I am also the Leader of the Community Action Party.

Hugh's article on the Socialist Party web site states: "The No campaign was dominated by a minority of politicians, especially the Tories who seized on this to pretend they are "on the side of the motorist", and to embarrass New Labour".

This is certainly not true as far as the GMPTA is concerned.

The Conservative members were silent on the matter and at the June 2007 GMPTA Annual General Meeting they sat on their hands and, in return for a few minor committee places, allowed the Labour Group to remain in control with former Councillor Roger Jones as Chairman.

The only unequivocal opposition to congestion charging on the GMPTA came from myself and my successor Councillor Jack Fagan from the Community Action Party.

Neither is it true as far as Wigan Council is concerned. The Conservative and Independent members were silent on the matter until the very last minute when they jumped on the bandwagon and hailed "their" victory.

Further his article states: "Commercial property giant Peel Holdings played a significant role - in last May's council elections, he (?) backed a Community Action Party (CAP) candidate in Salford against the sitting Labour councillor Roger Jones, chair of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and leading Yes campaign spokesperson."

This is not true! I had a meeting with Peel Holdings long before the May 2008 elections and made it clear that our opposition to congestion charging was for entirely different reasons to theirs. The Community Action Party never sought backing or support from Peel Holdings and have never received any.

Further again Hugh's article states: "The victory of the CAP candidate in what became a ward referendum on the charge was a foreshadowing of the referendum result. Ironically Peel Holdings has collaborated with Labour councils on many other pro-business projects from which it has gained and working-class people have lost out. But on this occasion self-interest and greed broke up a profitable friendship!"

This is not true. The  Community Action Party campaign in Salford was fought on a number of issues of which the congestion charge was just one. Our policies cover a variety of local and community issues and include opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, opposition to I.D. cards, opposition to racism and support for asylum seekers etc.  

Visit our website and click on Manifesto to see why people voted for us: http://www.community-action.com

In Wigan the Community Action Party have actively campaigned for free public transport and against congestion charging in a cross party alliance that included Stephen Hall and other members of the Respect Party as well as members of our local communities.

Best wishes

Peter Franzen

Absolutely Delighted

I was absolutely delighted that an idea I have been trying to explain to people is already being touted around.

In a few discussions about the Con-Charge, I have defended my No vote as a Not Yet & Not In This Format vote, but I have also been talking to several friends and saying to them that if the authorities want to use a stick and not a carrot, why not just bring in compulsory public transport passes for all citizens who are registered on the electoral roll, thus making it free and into-the-'bargain' for all citizens and not just under-14s and the elderly and those others who are excepted. And just charge those from outside the Greater Manchester conurbation who wouldn't have paid it at source via their Council Tax.

They of course baulk at the idea, but I point out that transport is one of the few things that we pay beyond the other essential services provided for by the local authorities.

All taxpayers pay retrospectively for the education they received, and for any of the Council's services for the elderly we pay in advance, as it were. In fact, any working adults who contribute Council Tax who weren't born here and/or who don't end up staying, they're subsidising everyone else. Then you have services that we all pay for like the Police Authority and Fire Service, recycling, waste collections, libraries etc etc etc.

So why don't we just get transport "free" i.e. paid for at source via Council Tax and then by not using it, and drive a car, the dynamic would be the same as if you have state education and choose to send your children to private school: you'd still be putting in your contribution to the system used by most people.

For these reasons, I am interested in joining the campaign and I am intending to get involved in the campaign for re-regulation for I believe it is this, and nothing to do with excesses of cars, that has screwed up our transport system in Greater Manchester.

I don't know how much I can assist due to my unpredictable working life (I am a freelance interpreter) but I am interested in getting involved.  

Kind regards  

Marc Starr

"Although Free Public Transport is highly
laudable in itself, it is impractical."

I've just been reading about your campaign, and must admit you do seem to have answered my first question already. That was going to be how would free public transport throughout GM be financed?

If the cost is "only" £300 million, then it does seem to be a more realistic proposition than I at first thought. Nevertheless, even with the profits of the Transport Operators taken out of the equation, surely this will leave a Council Tax bill of over £100 per household - in the first year, at least.

Although many of the objections to the TIF bid were because motorists could see their money going specifically to private Transport companies, I suspect you underestimate the level of hostility towards non-motorists in Greater. Manchester, and I don't think many car owning householders will be happy at paying £100+ so that others can travel for free.

This links into the second question; that of legislation.

We have now had over 20 years of buses run under the 1985 Transport Act, with futile amendments in 2000 - and no one really knows yet what is in the 2008 Local Transport Act. Indeed, whether by accident or design, the timing of the latter Bill receiving Royal Assent, did not help the supporters of the TIF bid. I suspect this was by design, as there seems to be a Media blackout on this legislation, even though it was passed as long ago as 26th November.

Anyway, the point is that in nearly a quarter of a century, Government's of both persuasions (Right-wing, and since 1997, Extreme Right-wing) have failed to even modify the most destructive aspect of de-regulation, and that is that every bus *journey* is a cost centre, and must make an operational profit. So, any chance that Parliament will do a complete U-turn and not only remove the need to make a profit, but legislate for an automatic 100% subsidy of public transport anywhere in provincial Britain, is pure fantasy.

Whilst the politicians and tax-payers of Hasselt should be congratulated on their foresight, I don't think it is a realistic comparison to make.

A quick look on Wikipedia, tells me that the population of Hasselt is 71,000 - the same as Denton and neighbouring Hyde combined. Greater Manchester is home to about 35 times as many people, with probably 350 times as many travel patterns. Also, the culture in Europe is somewhat different to Britain.

As some of the comments on the TIF/C-charge have also shown - and the concept itself has hardened attitudes - there is a cultural rift between Motorists and non-motorists in this country, and this is especially evident in Greater Manchester.

You only need to look at media coverage of Transport issues, whether its coverage of traffic delays ("Motorists" misery) or petrol prices (Good news for "poor, beleaguered" motorists), to see that impartiality in reporting has disappeared, and non-motorists are fast becoming the 21st century replacements for Black people, homosexuals and Lepers in previous "less civilised" centuries. The same media then has the hypocrisy to express concern for Climate Change.

I am also concerned at the thought of local authorities taking back control of the bus industry after a quarter of the century.

How would this be achieved; at what level; and what would their motives be? The record of (most of) the 10 boroughs in Greater Manchester is appalling.

Far from mitigating the effects of bus de-regulation, they have exploited it to restrict the freedoms of non-motorists. The biggest individual strategic example of this, was the 1995 "City Centre Bus Strategy", which despicably exploited a tragic accident to force non motorists who had to cross town to get to work or other facilities, to either walk between Piccadilly and Cross Street (oh look, buses are banned from there now, as well) or now, Shudehill; or to pay £5 a week extra to wait for an unreliable, overcrowded toy train.

The most glaring on-going example of how local politicians have betrayed non-motorists - and also, the main practical argument against free public transport for all - is the 100% tolerance of crime and anti-social behaviour on and around buses (although, from anecdotal evidence, crime is actually worse on Metrolink than it is on buses!).

Apart from major crimes, like missile attacks on buses, and fare evasion, which would automatically be solved with free transport; there are three specific crimes that happen many thousands of times a day on and around buses, with total impunity, namely 'pavement cycling', 'bus stop blocking' and smoking and general anti-social behaviour on buses, and these issues need to be addressed too.

Although, free public transport is highly laudable in itself, it is impractical. To address the triple problems of congestion, pollution and social exclusion, needs a complete and utter overhaul of Transport Policy, financing and attitude in this country, with many, many, fundamental changes.

Concentrating on one aspect, no matter how comprehensive the proposal itself is - is not enough. Far better to campaign for numerous integrated policies, all to implemented at the same time.

Philip Longdon
(The above is an abridged version of Philip Longdon's contribution. Click Philip Longdon's Public Transport Debate contribution for the full unabridged version.)

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