Ken vs. Boris: It's So On

but i thought "small cars" are getting a reduction in the fees.

£2 reduction in fees compared to likely average income of big car/small car owners = lulz, insult, injury

So BJ took coke as a teenager. Rich bastard.

exactly

I think it's time someone posted that picture of teenage toff Boris at Oxford!

wonder when cameron will have to take this particular plunge

What a haircut?

There seem to be nuff fuckwits in this country who like the firm smack of patrician authority for the poshness not to be an ish.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_1/CameronEton_600x539.jpg

Oh god, yes.

No 7 is the best, he's some kind of uber-toff.

£2 reduction in fees compared to likely average income of big car/small car owners = lulz, insult, injury

don't understand this bit.. explain?

Nah, 5 is the toffiest toff. I want to know who the unnumbered dude next to Boris is - he's definitely the most attractive. I guess he never ended up in politics.

no 7 is DAN from alan partridge

I swear my brother went to school with no. 6.

xxxpost

The charge disproportionately hits people on low incomes, like all indirect taxes, right? So giving peeps a reduction for smaller cars still means people on lower incomes pay more, as a proportion of their income, than wealthier people who are likely to be driving big cars and will happily pay a pittance for their right to do so.

Or can afford to buy another smaller car just to get cheaper drive round London fees.

I keep seeing that new Citroen advert and thinking it's a Tory PPB.

I don't understand Banriquit's POV

pollution is bad and it's generally good when people try to do things to stop it

terrible things happen to the natural environment, as result of human actions; it is not in the least hyperbolic to say this

It's a congestion charge, not a pollution charge.

so what you're saying is that they're not making a big enough step in the reducing small car + hit big car thing?

reducing fee for small car i mean

Pretty much every tax that isn't income tax disproportionately affects the poor - some people have more money to use to their advantage than others; unfortunate, but that's the way it is for the time being. The congestion charge is not a Thatcherite ploy to fleece the less fortunate, it's a way of disuading people from using private vehicles in Central London, which is a good thing. A handful of people are hit unfairly hard by it, I'm sure, but that's unavoidable, and I'm convinced it remains a postive thing for the city on the whole.

and the charge is about driving through the congestion charge zone still, right? i guess poor people who live within the congestion charge zone gets it bad..

pollution is bad and it's generally good when people try to do things to stop it

terrible things happen to the natural environment, as result of human actions; it is not in the least hyperbolic to say this

-- the pinefox, Friday, April 4, 2008 5:26 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

three separate justifications exist for the charge: congestion (the original justification), revenue (paddick says this is ken's real reason), and the environment -- ken's current public justification.

restricting transport in central london is less than a drop in the ocean in terms of global warming. it's nothing. to quibble about big or small cars is even more absurd.

far far far more has to be done -- you sound like a puffed-up idiot saying it's 'not in the least hyperbolic' to think that making drivers pay a few quid to drive in a few square miles of one city matters a damn.

I generally don't like indirect taxation because of this bias against poorer people, ken. I don't live in London and I don't know what an ideal solution would look like, but I'd say if cities are serious about reducing traffic pollution they'll have to be more draconian i.e. near-compulsory park and ride schemes; and if you go the pay to play route then yeah there should be a system that's closer to being equally discouraging for all drivers.

So I disagree with chap then but I'm basically a socialist.

B: I'm not quibbling about big or small cars - I know nothing about them

I think that policies that reduce driving / traffic / pollution, anywhere, are good

and that it may take bold politics to achieve these, and KL has done that

no, it's not in the least hyperbolic to say what I said, which was: humanity does terrible things to the only planet it has - this is a fact. so it's good when someone tries to reverse or limit these in any way

sounds like you don't think any of us should do anything, pro-environment, in our own lives. OK, up to you, but others will differ

you don't sound very nice, above - that's a pity, and quite surprising to me

I have socialist leanings myself, I just think singling out the CC as being part of some malevolent Capitalistic agenda is absurd. Maybe I'm being naive, but I think the intent behind it is good.

xpost

I don't care about intent, I'm interested in effect. Indirect taxation seems very, very unsocialist to me.

The environment, for some people, has become a kind of "somebody please think of the children!" trump card. But capitalism has played a good healthy part in fucking it up, so I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of a little bit of capitalist tinkering providing a serious solution: it's more profitable to pollute.

how redistributive does a congestion charge have to be? shouldn't it be judged a success by how much it actually reduces congestion?

the identification of big car = rich, small car = not rich has a ton of holes in it, too, btw

you can kind of only tax a couple things at a time: where you drive (simple enough), how big the car is (yup), AND how much money you have (uh ok)?

I think I used enough "generally"s to make it clear I wasn't saying all big car owners = ver rich. Of course all small cars = not necessarily less polluting, too. If a congestion charge reduces congestion then yeah, it's done its job. But Ken, who probably still likes to think of himself as a socialist, ought to be aware of how his charge works. If you're wealthy enough, you can still drive into the centre of London as much as you want. If you're poorer, you can't. Maybe this isn't discrimination. Looks like it tho.

I think your beef is with THE SYSTEM rather than this small and relatively benign part of it. As I said earlier, rich people can afford to do more stuff. Hopefully that will change one day, but that just has to be taken as a given the way things are at the moment.

helenlovejoy.jpg

no, it's not in the least hyperbolic to say what I said, which was: humanity does terrible things to the only planet it has - this is a fact. so it's good when someone tries to reverse or limit these in any way

sounds like you don't think any of us should do anything, pro-environment, in our own lives. OK, up to you, but others will differ

reading comprehension time: you said that to drive in central london is to do "unnecessarily terrible things to the natural environment". this is plainly so far out of proportion to be hyperbolic. where do chinese coaul-burning power stations rate on your scale of environmental doom?

thinking driving a bigger car as opposed to a smaller one is of any global significance involves a dose of bad faith.

and in general thinking stopping people who can't afford a fee from driving in central london will have any effect on climate change is lunatic, and the charge was not introduced to do this.

sounds like you don't think any of us should do anything, pro-environment, in our own lives.

quite the opposite, to the extent that i haven't learned to drive. i think much bigger efforts are needed.

proportion AS to be , chinese

coal

since when did having a car become a basic right? It's always been a luxury. Having a car in the city, no matter if big or small, means you're rich. The rest of us use public transport.

Also even if the real motive isn't helping the environment, London should be commended for trying to get rid of cars. If you've been to any Asian city lately, you'll know you can hardly breathe because of the traffic.

Having a car in the city, no matter if big or small, means you're rich.

this is stupid, not been true for a very long time.

no-one is calling car ownership a 'basic right', but, on the other hand, i'm unclear where the right comes from for arbitrary taxation.

Results 1 - 3 of 3 for eco-calvinism. (0.14 seconds)

reading comprehension time: you said that to drive in central london is to do "unnecessarily terrible things to the natural environment". this is plainly so far out of proportion to be hyperbolic. where do chinese coaul-burning power stations rate on your scale of environmental doom?

i think who ever becomes London Mayor should try and introduce a congestion charge in China. is that what you're saying?

thinking driving a bigger car as opposed to a smaller one is of any global significance involves a dose of bad faith

seems like you're talking about any individual as opposed to millions of individuals ie a big enough number for car size/economy to actually become an issue no?

yeah, but charging the consumer for driving a big car-rather-than-small makes it about personal choice -- and we're not going to turn things around that way. to make it real they have to hit Big Carbon.

(and the reduction of car use in central ldn during the daytime is still a tiny gesture.)

Lets have those stats for car ownership for the lowest income groups then NRQ.

Also, you ridiculous contention regarding the point(lessness) of the congestion charge is laughable. No-one is saying that it will change the world, but that it is important to take what steps one can, where you can. Claiming they made all the difference is idiotic; claiming that they make no difference is asinine.

The only people who think differently, of course, are new labour ministers, tories, and academic posturers who make nice sounding points on messageboards but are strangers to actual political engagement in the real world. Which one are you?

oooooooooooooooooh

Lets have those stats for car ownership for the lowest income groups then NRQ.

haha you dick, your guy said "only rich people" have cars. not "people above the lowest income groups" (which groups btw?). get your head out of the 1930s.

idea that only the rich own cars is palpably absurd. by all means, let's have those stats.

i don't know what your "actual political engagement in the real world" credentials are -- but this is a pretty fruitless line of argument to pursue: most people have no practical engagement. they are still entitled to think that pinefox's comment was hyperbolic.

if you think the charge -- which i'm not even against as such -- is about saving the environment yr a bigger idiot than i already thought.

i don't know what your "actual political engagement in the real world" credentials are

he predicted alan johnson would succeed tony blair

Alol Johnsontory

anyway, to answer the question, i'm a new labour minister.