Nice One Porsche

Who the hell wants to drive an expensive car like a Porsche in the rat runs of London.There is nowhere to park and driving anywhere in the city is a nightmare and sooo stressful.If I was wealthy enough to afford a Porsche and living in London I'd rather spend the money on Taxis..If there were less of such cars in the centre of London then the buses would be able to run more efficiently

In fact this country being as impacted by cars as it is it's hardly viable to have a car that you cannot drive up to the speeds that they are so obviously bought for.Why buy a Ferrari or similar when you cannot legally drive at the speeds that they capable of?

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Arthur, where do you live?

I'll ask again...

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

l used to work for a company, that delivered to the West End area, they worked on a tight budget, but they had four drivers, now that is £40.00 per day, plus parking charges etc, this is what l am talking about, now if you get a parking ticket, that is £80.00.

Does not really answer it and well adding costs for illegal parking is not really a justification that the charge itself is unreasonable. In fact if the charge keeps these cars out of the parking and delivery bays your former employer might get less parking tickets. 1 parking ticket = 2 days of congestion charges, that will add up quick.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by iglu

Red Ken is the best thing that happened to London. He understands London and Londoners love him, despite his shortcomings.

Actually, I suspect it was a case of the opposite. Londoners voted for him because they found him slightly less offensive than the tory candidate, the liberals continually make the mistake of being open and saying their policies will cost money (nothing seems to frighten voters off quicker than the thought of higher taxes) andall the minority parties are a little bit "out there" for the mainstream voters..

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

There is far better ways of persuading people than dreaming up ways of cashing in on the excuses of climate change.

Name one. Better public transport is one, but is currently hampered by the stupid system of privatisation in place on both tube and trains, and buses are hampered by the number of cars on the road.

[BBKing]

He understands London and Londoners love him, despite his shortcomings.

My Mrs, a born (and half-bred) Londoner, votes for him because she remembers him fighting for London against Thatcher in the 1980s, particularly things like Fares Fair, and going down in flames. Don't overestimate the power of martyrdom, being the little guy who gets up and carries on swinging.

While obviously that political capital isn't inexhaustible, it does explain why he won against the odds back in 2000 - nice though Frank Dobson is, no one was going to vote in a candidate deliberately parachuted in to stop Livingstone. He also has a track record of fighting central government and being proved right, for instance on Metronet and London Overground, which is one reason I'm voting for him - see his 2004 manifesto and compare against reality:

* continue recovery from two decades of neglect under the Conservatives
* continue the programme of increased neighbourhood policing
* cut crime and make streets, parks and public transport safer
* continue reducing traffic congestion by extending the Congestion Charge Zone
* extend improvements in bus services and delivering similar improvements to the rest of the transport system
* improve transport in outer London with better buses and new tram lines
* run the Tube later every Friday and Saturday night with a free service on New Year's Eve
* work with government and voluntary sector with a long-term aim that all parents have access to high quality, affordable childcare.
* build 30,000 new homes a year and continue providing affordable housing
* tackle air pollution, making London a Low Emission Zone with rigorous pollution standards for lorries, buses, coaches and taxis.
* provide free bus travel to under-18s in full-time education
* bring the Olympic Games to London in 2012

2 are waffle (I get high-quality childcare, but I'm not sure he had a lot to do with it), 1 (the housing) I've no idea about, one is half-done (no trams yet, thanks to the Tories and NIMBYs) and the rest I think he gets a tick in the box.

So not quite 'love him', perhaps, but people certainly see him as a true Londoner and thus, fundamentally, on their side, since he generally does what he says he's going to do.

[slug]

Originally Posted by BBKing

My Mrs, a born (and half-bred) Londoner, votes for him because she remembers him fighting for London against Thatcher in the 1980s, particularly things like Fares Fair, and going down in flames. Don't overestimate the power of martyrdom, being the little guy who gets up and carries on swinging.

Sticking it to Thatcher is one of the main reasons I vote for him and I think that goes for a lot of people who can remember the 80's.

It's been 15 years, guys - time to move on

By harking back to the memory of her, you keep it alive (imho).

[slug]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

It's been 15 years, guys - time to move on

By harking back to the memory of her, you keep it alive (imho).

When she dies I will move on.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Hi BB King, my point, that you have asked is this, we pay too much in taxation in this country, l worked in Central London, for about ten years, and everywhere you go, it cost money, when l stated about major stores, it is up to these stores, to put a stop to him, the US Embassy, has already said that they won't pay the CC, if you live in London or live near a major city, everywhere you go, there is a traffic warden, giving you grief,, but it seems to Ken, that we have a bottomless pocket, to pour money into his pocket, my reason for the thread, is that it is about time a company (it could have been any company) stood up to him, l just hope and pray, he doesn't get in again, as what will happen next.

[alferret]

I dont like Ken Leninspart, I dont like him for what he used to stand for and for what he stands for now. If I want to drive my Porsche or X5 through london why should I be penalised. Why should I have to pay because of my emmisions being slightly more than a fart when there are a huge amount of oil burners still poluting London passing themselves off for taxi's and buses.


Regardless of what guise it comes in, its another tax and NOT a charge for a service.
We pay vehicle tax already, we pay through the nose for fuel (due to the governments taxation on fuel) and now we get taxed if we drive through London.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Why buy a Ferrari or similar when you cannot legally drive at the speeds that they capable of?

Most cars can travel over 70mph, so why do you think people buy them then?

[BBKing]

If I want to drive my Porsche or X5 through london why should I be penalised

a) because you're having an effect on the environment of the people who live and work there
b) because you're taking up road space which could be used more efficiently
c) because there's a perfectly good alternative
d) because the people who live there want you to, it's called democracy

I've paid it precisely once, which as I've said before I've more than saved in discounts by using Oyster and because bus fares in London are cheaper than the rest of the country and in real terms (and tube fares in the suburbs are a ridiculous bargain of a quid anywhere). If it really were a tax the proceeds of it (legally ringfenced for public transport) wouldn't be spent on measures designed to help people avoid paying it, would they? It's precisely what it says on the tin, a charge designed to encourage modal shift, provide money for public transport (does anyone sane seriously think Ken sticks it in his Swiss bank account?) and reduce air pollution. Now it's proposed to extend this to reducing CO2 emissions, but only after an election.

Next. Incidentally, Mr. Leninspart would like you to know that:

"It's very hard, given that I've sat squat on the centre of the political spectrum, [for the assembly] to actually find much to complain about," he quips.

He's nowhere near the stereotypical Red Ken these days, he's as likely to borrow ideas from the US and Singapore and have lunch with a businessman than he is to big up Venezuela and visit a lesbian co-op in Hackney. Read the whole article (yes, obviously it's the Guardian, so go and read Boris' campaign website - http://www.backboris.com/ - for some balance if you want).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...tone.interview

it is up to these stores, to put a stop to him,

Even the ones in Kingston-upon-Thames, 10+ miles outside the CC zone? Why would they bother? They exist to sell things and make a profit, not campaign against things that enjoy mass support.

everywhere you go, it cost money

Try walking. Free as the air.

everywhere you go, there is a traffic warden, giving you grief

Try the tube. Guaranteed free of traffic wardens.

l just hope and pray, he doesn't get in again, as what will happen next.

Given his past record, what will happen is precisely what he said would happen. As the article says, what he's really done is end-run the Whitehall Sir Humphreys and lo-and-behold that means things get done faster, better and more efficiently. So if you like hands on politicians and dislike Civil Service bureaucracy...

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Hi BB King, my point, that you have asked is this, we pay too much in taxation in this country, l worked in Central London, for about ten years, and everywhere you go, it cost money, when l stated about major stores, it is up to these stores, to put a stop to him, the US Embassy, has already said that they won't pay the CC, if you live in London or live near a major city, everywhere you go, there is a traffic warden, giving you grief,, but it seems to Ken, that we have a bottomless pocket, to pour money into his pocket, my reason for the thread, is that it is about time a company (it could have been any company) stood up to him, l just hope and pray, he doesn't get in again, as what will happen next.

Well, there is a simple solution if you don't like the Congestion Charge or fuel duty. Don't drive if you don't need to. You won't have to pay either for the journey then. Also, you won't get any grief from traffic wardens. Also, if you do need/want to drive, but still want to avoid wardens, the choice is simple. Don't park illegally. If you don't, and get a ticket, appeal.

And while we are at it, I'll ask the same question I asked Mick: Bearing in mind that for London to function efficiently, we need to reduce the amount of traffic (how many millions, or even billions of pounds are lost to UK companies because their staff are stuck in traffic?), how would *you* reduce the traffic in London?

Originally Posted by BBKing

Try walking. Free as the air.

Try not to be so patronising it doesn't suit you.

If I want to use the car - I'll use the car - if I want to walk - I'll walk. My choice just as much as the next persons.

People shouldn't have to be forced into doing something just because something else costs more money - it isn't the answer. It just enables those with the money to carry doing what they want because they can afford to. Thus creating a nation of Rich vs The Poor.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Well, there is a simple solution if you don't like the Congestion Charge or fuel duty. Don't drive if you don't need to.

And what happened to Freedom of choice? Why should people be bullied by financial penalties to reduce such problems.

Saying 'Don't drive if you don't need to' is completely ridiculous especially from someone who doesn't drive, isn't that right Stuart.

[jkat]

just dont see the attraction of driving these days, such a pain finding parking etc and motorways jammed 24/7. always prefer the train into town and very impressed with londons transport systems (yes i know it could be better and cheaper).

People talk about Freedom of Choice, but surely we have some responsibilities as well as rights.

If so many people are using their cars, clogging up the roads and adding to local pollution levels (as well as the lost productivity / reduced quality of life caused by sitting in traffic jams), surely if some one puts it as a manifesto item that he/she is going to try and reduce this congestion, and he/she is voted for by the majority voting, isn't that the democracy that we all want to live under.

It's not as if RK is advocating shooting all motorists - he is saying (and giving the electorate a chance to vote on it) "here's what I will do to alleviate this problem".

I travel to/through London quite a lot, and I can't understand why anyone would want to drive in/through it (in a car), as the public transport is, on the whole, miles better than most other conurbations in the UK (imho).

OK, it can sometimes be a bit smelly and crowded on the train/tube/bus, but at least you can read, which is not recommended whilst you're driving.

I don't see anyone offering any alternatives, unless they are saying that there isn't a congestion problem in Central London. It seems that people are against Congestion Charging (as they are perfectly entitled to be), but I don't see any other solutions offered.