Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most
polluting cars.

Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of
creating a separate zone for the western extension?

If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight
incentive for them to use lighter vehicles.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:44:04 +0100, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most
polluting cars.


Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing
matters.

Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of
creating a separate zone for the western extension?

Unlikely.


If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight
incentive for them to use lighter vehicles.

Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone,
are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest.
--
If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness,
and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you
want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look
Do you go to the top or to the bottom?

Greg Hennessy wrote:
Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most
polluting cars.


Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing
matters.

Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare.

Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of
creating a separate zone for the western extension?

Unlikely.

Agreed.

If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight
incentive for them to use lighter vehicles.

Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone,
are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest.

True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each
a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the
outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
Greg Hennessy wrote:
Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most
polluting cars.


Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing
matters.

Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare.

Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of
creating a separate zone for the western extension?

Unlikely.

Agreed.

If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight
incentive for them to use lighter vehicles.

Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone,
are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest.

True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each
a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the
outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Although I do not normally subscribe to class-warfare type causes,
something our Deputy Prime Minister does adequately for all of us put
together, I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the
following reasons:

1. Their drivers are so often appallingly bad at driving, which results
in
(a) road-hogging
and (b) poor parking, both causing much inconvenience for others;
2. Their journey (e.g. 200 yards to take Annabelle to prep school) is
so often totally unnecessary
3. They do use more fuel and cause more pollution

But, I also agree that £600-odd will be unlikely to be much felt by
those who can afford to drive such monstrosities in the first place.

Marc.

wrote:
John B wrote:
Greg Hennessy wrote:
Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most
polluting cars.


Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing
matters.

Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare.

Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of
creating a separate zone for the western extension?

Unlikely.

Agreed.

If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight
incentive for them to use lighter vehicles.

Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone,
are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest.

True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each
a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the
outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Although I do not normally subscribe to class-warfare type causes,
something our Deputy Prime Minister does adequately for all of us put
together, I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the
following reasons:

1. Their drivers are so often appallingly bad at driving, which results
in
(a) road-hogging
and (b) poor parking, both causing much inconvenience for others;
2. Their journey (e.g. 200 yards to take Annabelle to prep school) is
so often totally unnecessary
3. They do use more fuel and cause more pollution

But, I also agree that £600-odd will be unlikely to be much felt by
those who can afford to drive such monstrosities in the first place.

Marc.

It seems a bit hypocritical of mayor Ken to do this. If he is so anti
pollution why is he bringing the Olympics to London. Does anybody know
how much extra carbon the construction and the games will pump into the
atmosphere or is he working on the basis that whether the games went to
Paris or London the same amount of carbon is produced.

Kevin

Kev wrote:
It seems a bit hypocritical of mayor Ken to do this. If he is so anti
pollution why is he bringing the Olympics to London. Does anybody know
how much extra carbon the construction and the games will pump into the
atmosphere or is he working on the basis that whether the games went to
Paris or London the same amount of carbon is produced.

Some interesting stuff here may help answer your question:
http://www.london2012.com/en/ourvision/greengames/

Quote: "An unprecedented agreement between London 2012, conservation
group WWF and sustainable development experts BioRegional publically
states that London will host a zero-waste, low carbon Games which
deliver long-term social and environmental benefits to the city."

The strong environment and regeneration focus was one way in which
London's bid outscored the other cities. Here's the relevant section of
the bidding document (PDF):
http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyr...nvironment.pdf

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 13 Jul 2006 08:45:04 -0700, "Kev" wrote:



It seems a bit hypocritical of mayor Ken to do this. If he is so anti
pollution why is he bringing the Olympics to London.

Quite.

Does anybody know
how much extra carbon the construction and the games will pump into the
atmosphere

Far less than the 300 odd coal fired power stations the Chinese are
building. Something which demonstrates the thinly disguised lie behind UK
efforts to allegedly reduce global warming.
--
If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness,
and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you
want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look
Do you go to the top or to the bottom?

On 13 Jul 2006 08:11:15 -0700, "
wrote:

Although I do not normally subscribe to class-warfare type causes [...]
I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the
following reasons:

1. Their drivers are so often appallingly bad at driving, which results
in
(a) road-hogging
and (b) poor parking, both causing much inconvenience for others;
2. Their journey (e.g. 200 yards to take Annabelle to prep school) is
so often totally unnecessary
3. They do use more fuel and cause more pollution

You'll know when they intend to tax such beasties when the tax
specifies so high and so wide. It just aien't so: the proposed hate
tax is based on the g/km figure. As poster Adrian correctly said,
plenty CTs come below the 225g/km while enough smaller vehicles exceed
it. Issue here is that one target of hate (CT) is being used to slip
in tax rises. Issue 2 is how the media don't bother/are too dim to
explain this. Issue 3 is incitement: I'm no fan of CTs but the bile
being spewed against them is not nice to see. First they came for the
Tractors, then they came for the cyclists, ... This is not intelligent
politics but barrow boy stuff.

I've sent another missive, this time to politics.guardian.co.uk on
this. My previous to the BBC web site elicited a zero response.

--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

Colum Mylod ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the
following reasons:

You'll know when they intend to tax such beasties when the tax
specifies so high and so wide.

groan
Don't go there. Just don't. Really. Trust me on this. DO NOT GO THERE.

marks thread ignore

John B wrote:

True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each
a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the
outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H...

Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away
substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services, than
those in lower bands.

If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that
said.

Neil