Ken Livingstone announced this morning that he will charge every car with an engine which emits more than 225g/km of carbon a £25 a day congestion charge. He reckons this will affect people with "Chelsea Tractors". It will, but it will also affect many people with normal family estate cars. This has little to do with environmental friendliness - it has more to do with class hatred against people who are successful enough to afford a nice car.Diesel-fired buses and taxis are simply poisoning Londoners. The Low Emission Zone will not help much either because...
1. The bar is set too low on commercial vehicles. Euro4 engines should be minimum requirement. 2. Particulate traps don't work at low speeds.
3. The LEZ doesn't tackle Nitrogen Dioxide pollution - which causes smog and is very bad for the lungs.
The MSM has also mixed up emissions and pollution. Emissions is used to describe CO2 - colourless, ordorless and not harmful to health. Pollution impacts on your health and recent report from a US and UK university study showed Oxford Street’s atmosphere would affect asthma suffers for at least a day.The irony is that the cleanest engines are modern petrol units. Modern passenger diesels aren't too bad, especially if they don't spend long on the Capital's more free-flowing roads. Under this revenge scheme, Leninstone will charge smaller-engined old smokers £8 per day and the cleanest engines £25, with no residents discount for the latter. A number of Euro cities introduce low emissions zones in January which are based on the Euro-rating of the engine, ignoring CO2 emissions completely. So A Euro4 engined car, for example, can enter for free. Livingstone might also announce a switch to ‘tag and beacon’ charging, using IBM tech developed for Stockholm. Stockholm government came to see the C-Charge in (in)action and went back and had IBM design a far better system. Livingstone has had to go cap in hand to IBM, before London’s current ANPR system collapses. Last year the C-Charge actually lost money (£5m or so) and were it not for the huge fine income it would have been in the red. Tag and
Beacon is the system used on the continent for years, which has a pre-paid charged mounted in the windscreen. Auto payment should end fines.
51 comments:
Iain I agree this is ridiculous. I have four children (before anyone starts moaning about having more than two children, 2 are from my first marriage and 2 are from my wife's first marriage. We both lost our husband/wife to cancer. Anyway what business is it of yours).
Try finding a car that will seat 6 people and luggage for six! With
those cars you can seat 6 in, the only luggage you can carry is a lunchbox.
I have a Renault Grand Espace, which falls into this category of gas guzzler. Now I don't live near London, we sometimes visit the Museums etc. With this tax we just wont bother. (You try taking 4 children under 10 on a train or bus.)
If we want to go to a capital city for a city break we'll go to Paris.
I wonder what Boris will say though. Is this a move by Ken to introduce class warfare , he has tried very hard to make it about racial warfare.
I totally agree Iain, especially about your point regarding normal estate-type cars. The things which annoys me is that you have all this legislation (quite rightly, I'm sure) that says you have to have your children in car seats, which while being laudible, means an incredible amount of room is taken up in your car. So have more than two kids (I have two!) then you're buggered as you have to have a people carrier of some description to fit in all the damn seats! And, thus, you're facing a higher charge.
I'm sure all those without kids will say that's just tough, but I think that people are being penalised for having families and following the law. It's poorly thought through - but then what do you expect from Red Ken??
As I posted on Guido, the pettiness of Red Ken & Gordon Brown & their obsession with class in this day and age demonstrates the smallmindedness of both the left and those who vote for them. Pretty pathetic.
"...has little to do with environmental friendliness - it has more to do with class hatred against people who are successful enough to afford a nice car."
Iain
You really are going for the Colenol Blimp vote now. This is the sort of silly bollocks you hear in the saloon bars of Home Counties pubs - and, of course, in their adherents' Golf Clubs. You can't really believe it can you? Have the little jibes that you are not a real Conservative got to you?
Rubbish there are plenty of nice estates and even 4x4s (e.g BMW X6) below the 225gm limit.
I thought you were all part of Cameron's green brigade now? Oh that's right, that was all bollocks...
Anonymous 1.40pm - there are two ways of getting round the issue:
1) register your vehicle as a minicab - from recent news stories, you can do it for a small fee each year and you need never prove that you're using it as a cab
2) buy a long-wheelbase Land Rover station wagon; as it has 9 seats you can register it in the "8 seats or more" class and it becomes C-charge exempt.
Terrible innit. Forced to use public transport with the oiks. What is the world coming to?
Personally, I blame the asylum seekers.
Iain, do you think being "successful enough to afford a nice car" means you have a right to pollute more than others? Should people who are "successful enough" to afford a nice period house in Hampstead with a working fireplace be allowed to light fires in London? What about an ordinary family house in Acton?
The mayor of London has no jurisdiction over other cities so why is that relevant that they aren't (yet) proposing such a charge?
Had you read the post properly you would have seen the point about these cars not actually being the most polluting.
Anon - the other way around it is to buy any diesel Grand Espace except the version with the largest engine - they are all below the 225g limit.
Perhaps what is wrong is not giving people time to adapt to the new requirements rather than the requirements itself.
"It will, but it will also affect many people with normal family estate cars. This has little to do with environmental friendliness - it has more to do with class hatred against people who are successful enough to afford a nice car."
Iain, that is an over the top reaction. 'Nice' cars? Are all big cars 'nice' cars? Do poor people drive 'small' cars? Are 'small' cars' nasty?
Class war? Socialism? Why are you using this outdated terminology?
Do you still have jet lag?
its hard enough getting parking in W11 these days and when Cordelia and I take the 3 children to our little place in Devon we barely have room in the 4x4 for us, them, the nanny, the other nanny, and labs not to mention luggage. Last time I had to send the other nanny with the luggage via public omnibus (well she is from Latvia - they understands the whole ghastly concept far better that us).
Well it makes my blood boil. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of global warming. I hardly ever use the helicopter these days but they will insist on holding the six nations over the half-term.
yes Iain, I did read it but you seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If there is a genuine case to be made for exempting estate cars then you have made it but there is an important principle here which needs serious consideration. Why do you think owning an estate car would make someone the target of class envy? Unless it was an audi of course. Damn them all. (ex-girlfriend audi enthusiast - wont forget, cant forgive)
You're quite right - its not a Congestion Charge any longer. An Emissions Zone does little to affect pollution and nothing to tackle congestion - which is the real villain of our scelerotic London streets. If it was down to me the C-charge would be set at £50or so a day, for vehicles of all shapes and sizes - to deter strongly people from unnecessarily driving cars etc in central London. The deterrent part is important - to make people really think about whether they actually need to use a car or whether they couldn't use a taxi or some form of relatively plentiful public transport (relative to the rest of the UK, that is - try waiting for a bus or train in some areas and you'd grow a beard of religious proportions before one comes along!).
I applauded Ken's C-charge in the early days. Now the principle has been gradually but inexorably eroded and the goalposts moved - why west London and not North, East or South London for the charge, where congestion is just as bad?
I say, restore the original principle, extend the charge to the whole of Greater London without exception (including Ministerial cars - to be paid for peronally by Ministers and NOT put on their expenses), raise it to deterrent levels and then enjoy being able to get about the city again with relative ease. It won't happen so you needn't worry.
You may want to define CO2 as not being polluting - but you are in a distinct minority. Until the UK Govt. produces relaible measures of other pollutants produced by cars then CO2 is probably the measure we have - but of course if you want to propose an overall pollution measure for tax and congestion charge purposes I am sure Dave/Boris will consider it for their next manifestoes.
This is an excellent idea. We need strong and often harsh measures to tackle pollution and hopefuly this will make those selfish people who but large cars they don't need have a rethink.
Nice one Ken.
I apologise Iain - your post made reference to the east and north of London, not England, which I misread. Point taken.
Why has the end of the blog fallen off? It only goes down to the two videos.
It's got nothing to do with class Iain and it's got everything to do with trying to stop people clogging up the streets of my city.
Get on your bike or walk and shut up
When will this nauseating 'green agenda' fall out of fashion?
I'm getting bored of it now!
It won't take long, like Live8 - remeber those elastic bands everyone wore- but i wish it would move on faster!
I can tell you what Boris says about it. He's against it, except when he supports it.
Boris told a TV interview that the low emissions zone specifically was "the most punitive, draconian fining regime in the whole of Europe".
But Boris' website says: "I will support the Low Emission Zone to improve air quality."
So that's cleared that up then.
David, the two statements are not necessarily opposites. It is still possible to support something which is both punative and draconian. And which TV interview was it please?
You know we all knew what Red Ken was like before Mrs T got rid of him.Flying the red flag over county hall and all that.Londoners have continued to vote for the pratt, so I have nothing but distain for those that have given him power. It is up to all Londoners to vote for Boris, and get rid of the traitor before he does even more damage
Mr Briggs instead of having a go at Sir Iain . What do you think. ?You probably think Ken is great.
Christ on a bendy bus...
As Iain's correspondent, I thought I'd been clear, but let's try again.
The number one priority for central London is free-flowing traffic and clean air. Reducing CO2 may be micro-green, but reducing the 1000 premature deaths in London each year is more important.
To this end you do not have heavy diesel vehicles running stop-start through the capital. By TFL's own admission, pollutions levels are well up SINCE the C-Charge came in. Modern petrol vehicles emit very little in the way of pollution.
Back in the mid-1990s Saab ran a 9000 Turbo through the city and found the air coming out of the exhaust was cleaner than the air going into the engine.
Why do you think New York, Tokyo, Delhi, Tehran, Beijing - list goes on - have switched to gas-powered buses? Because they are SO clean.
Diesel cars are banned in five states in the US for god's sake, with such strict pollution limits, Mercedes and BMW have only just managed to design a diesel engine that will pass.
1. Free-off the centre of capital by removing the traffic lights at Trafalgar square and stop the policy of road closures and road narrowing. Congestion is far worse than it should be with these traffic levels - it is being made artifically worse at certain pinch points.
2. Crash replace the taxis and the buses with gas or petrol-powered vehicles.
3. Use the upcoming 'tag and beacon' charging system to vary the cost of driving into the centre depending on the time of day and Euro-engine rating.
4. For example, Euro5 engined SUV after 10.00am should cost £3. A Euro3 engined diesel van should be charged £8.
Are you listening Boris?
Green Lantern,
An eco-friendly vehicle with one person behind the wheel is more pollution / CO2 emitting per person than a Chelsea tractor with 4 people in it.
You must have a x-per-person measurement. Otherwise it makes no sense... like Ken's charge...
Just looking at the vehicle and not the way it is used is stupid.
What's a 'premature death', then? Is it now compulsory to live for a certain span of years? Maybe Livingstone is working on that particular tax right now.
Actually I think that the Congestion Charges have done and will do so much more damage to the less affluent than to the relatively wealthy.
This is really not about 'quality of life' or public health. If it was we would have seen the (fantastic) revenues being used to promote and support both aims, rather than being blown away on the likes of the monstrous Lee Jasper and his appalling cohorts.
What's a 'premature death', then? Is it now compulsory to live for a certain span of years? Maybe Livingstone is working on that particular tax right now.
Actually I think that the Congestion Charges have done and will do so much more damage to the less affluent than to the relatively wealthy.
This is really not about 'quality of life' or public health. If it was we would have seen the (fantastic) revenues being used to promote and support both aims, rather than being blown away on the likes of the monstrous Lee Jasper and his appalling cohorts.
Unsworth....'fantastic revenues'.
Last year the C-Charge lost £5m and relied on £95m or so in fines to get into profit. The admin costs of the charge have risen from £90m to £150m.
See this http://philtaylor.org.uk/?p=726
for the full financial horror.
This isn't "class hatred against people who are successful enough to afford a nice car" but it may be eminently sensible contempt for people who see cars as status symbols. Now if there was only a way to tax people who talk about how much their houses are worth....
Baffles me why people continue to vote for this t***er.You cannot begin to imagine how relieved I am to be living in Watford Just beyond the clutches of this berk.
Charge Ken treble the going rate for advertising on your blog.
One charge for the little people, another for class-war, ignorant Trots.
England's gone green mad. How much do you think of this charge will be ploughed back into environmental research/issues?
You couldn't get me to come back to England if you paid me...
Serves you bloody well right - so don't come crying to us sunshine.
The fact is that by quoting the cost of a second-hand Volvo you have just contradicted your specious argument that this is a 'Class Charge'. [Like anyone gives a f**k about that these days. ] And this post is just you trying to tell everyone what a big car you've got. Well we all know what they say about men with big cars...
Face the facts - gas guzzlers have had their day and are going out of fashion. They are naff, lack style and you will have to catch up with the new trend sooner or later - so you might as well get ahead of the curve.
Or why not be like Boris and get a bike. It might even help you lose a bit of weight and cheer you up from your 'grumpy old man' routine...
Ciao, baby..
"Had you read the post properly you would have seen the point about these cars not actually being the most polluting."
Iain complaining about someone not reading his post properly is a bit rich given his coverage of Rowan Williams' comments!
In addition to the valid points you already raised Iain, my own observation is that the Cars vs. Environment 'debate' always seems to accept the view that it is somehow more environmentally sound to buy a new car than an older one.
When considering local air quality - a concern to all of us - it is no doubt a factor, albeit a small one compared to the thousands of filthy diesel taxis and buses that are still allowed to pollute our cities. But the amount of energy and non-renewable resources invested in the manufacture of that nice shiny new mass-manufactured, short-lifespan tin crate is grotesque, so I struggle to understand why somebody who is essentially 'recycling' a car should be penalised on environmental grounds, unless it is an absolute filth-mobile (in which case it shouldn't be passing its MoT anyway).
Then again it has been clear from day one that the C-Charge is a money-making exercise. Did anyone really believe Ken when he said in 2003, "I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the [£5] charge, although perhaps 10 years down the line it may be necessary."?
so what is the connection between being 'successful' and being 'rich'? It's this false connection which means kids today want to be gangster rappers or amoral, 'dynamic' businessmen rather than educated, cultured and sociable
Iain, this is not a charge for owning one of these vehicles - IT IS A CHARGE FOR DRIVING ONE INTO CENTRAL LONDON DURING DAYTIME !!!!!!
Nobody is forcing you to do this !!
You could walk, cycle or [radical concept alert] TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORT.
There simply isn't enough room on the road for everyone who wants to drive into central London to do so. I would have thought getting people to pay to do so would fall into the category of being a 'market' rather than a 'socialist' solution.
What is the matter - can't you afford it ? Aaahh...Diddums...
Johnny Norfolk said...
"You know we all knew what Red Ken was like before Mrs T got rid of him.Flying the red flag over county hall and all that."
The red flag was never flown over County Hall during Ken Livingstone's reign.
Iain said: "it has more to do with class hatred against people who are successful enough to afford a nice car."
I am successful enough to have retired at the age 47, so I don't need to use my "nice car" in the Congestion Zone. In fact I don't use it much at all. I prefer to walk, as does Roger Evans, Conservative AM for Redbridge & Havering and Chairman of the GLA Transport Committee. He does not own a car at all.
So, Iain, Would you prefer Central London to be pedestrianised? I would!
That would solve both your pollution and "class charge" issue.
I take it that you, and those with family estate cars do have feet?
Maybe you should suggest this to Boris?
Iain, if you are worried about the cost of motoring, why don't you pen a nice letter to Hugo Chavez ? He might take pity on you and let you have some subsidised oil ?
@ Anonymous 5:08 PM
Precisely. Loadsamoney in - and who exactly is benefitting? Consultants? Administrators? Accountants? What on earth did we do before such low-grade life forms got into the food chain?
By raising the charge ever higher, all Ken is doing is ensuring only the richest can drive around London, the plebs having to use other ways of getting around.
It'll benefit me as I can afford to drive my sports car through the centre of London any time I please, and all these £200 charges for lorries and £25 for 4x4s will free up more space for me and my car.
Doesn't make it right though.
The Mayor has been suppressing his own £1.4 million consultation on this scheme which showed that 60% of people though that the scheme would not work and has instead been bigging up a cheap survey which showed that 66% of people were in favour of the proposal upon which Transport for London has consulted. The Mayor is an unprincipled creep and the Greens and Ipsos MORI who collaborated on this fraud should be ashamed of themselves.
Iain you could always just stop driving in London. This is not a tax on polluting cars, its a tax on driving them in London. I have one - nothing flash but its a 2.5V6 saloon and so emits 252gm. But I NEVER drive it in London, just drive to a tube station in the suburbs and tube/walk the rest. I don't understand why anyone would want to drive in London, at least during the day. Surely, when you're doing you're late night paper reviews, where I guess you would want the car for safety reason, the C-Charge doesn't apply?
When Conservatives were using the line that the Congestion charge would be ignored by the rich, but would punish the poor who would be forced onto Public Transport, was that class warfare too?
You certainly started a debate with this one Iaian
Tell me about it. But TC Brown, former chancellor, taxes my Ford Ka at the same rate as a chelsea tractor, even though it doe twice the MPG, weighs a third as much, and ue less space. It is just tax grab and hatred of people who with their own money can manage to buy decent cars. Beachhutman.
Doesn't Ken himself have some sort of "nice" car for use at weekends? Presumably as the CC isn't charged then, it doesn't matter how much pollution he spreads around Norf Lunnon.
The City was a lot less smelly yesterday, and a lot less congested.
Post a Comment