Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Elections and Council Matters => Topic started by: jimblob on April 08, 2022, 02:42:16 PM
-
Could each of the councillors please offer their views/stance on the currently delayed Charging Clean Air Zone across 493 sq miles of Greater Manchester and whether or not they support ANY drivers being charged.
-
Could each of the councillors please offer their views/stance on the currently delayed Charging Clean Air Zone across 493 sq miles of Greater Manchester and whether or not they support ANY drivers being charged.
I don’t agree with any driver being charged and have stated this when I have spoken to residents. There are far too many people who could be penalised because of their vehicle and there is an obvious knock on effect with businesses having to charge residents extra for services. The proposed charges has also increased prices of conforming vehicles making them harder to pay for or even obtain (2 of my work colleagues have advised me of this).
I also feel that accountability needs to be raised regarding the amount of trees etc that were cut down to put the signage up, as someone very keen on environmental issues I have been shocked at lines of trees removed on some parts of our motorway network so the signs are visible. On top of this is the (according to reports) £190k spent on covering the signs with ‘under review’ stickers.
I do understand the need for change to go along with protecting our environment but improving public transport facilities would be my priority, not making people pay extra to go about their business, especially with recent increases in gas, electric and food prices which for many are proving to be a financial nightmare.
Thank you
Steve
-
It's good to read Steve's pragmatic comments. I await other candidates' comments with interest.
The whole project is driven by agenda based science, flawed ideology and an undisguised desire to make money on the back of yet another bandwagon.
There is no hard data about the impact of the few places within the region where levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulates occasionally exceed an arbitrarily defined limit. Claims about the effect on health are based on supposition, theoretical models and, frankly, guesswork. There have been frequent wild claims about how many thousands of people die each year in the UK from nitrogen oxides from vehicles; none is based on data. Even the BBC's fact checking service had to admit that "figures for the UK stem from research in the US. It's a statistical construct, not a count of actual deaths." In other words, simple extrapolation from theoretical American models.
A far greater source of respiratory problems is from the widespread use of cleaning and cosmetic aerosols, on which Britain spends £billions and sales of which boomed during the pandemic*, and from people living and working in sealed homes and workplaces, without open windows.
Without an autopsy (with detailed bronchial profiling) for every person in Greater Manchester who dies with symptoms of respiratory distress not of an infectious nature, none of the current claims can be substantiated. The air of the North West is cleaner than it has been since before the industrial revolution.
* https://worldaerosols.com/news/uk-aerosol-industry-exceeded-expectations-in-2020-says-bama/
-
It's good to read Steve's pragmatic comments. I await other candidates' comments with interest.
Indeed
-
I'm not surprised by the deathly quiet from the other candidates regarding this issue.
They've also been pretty quiet after registering and not bothering to introduce themselves.
-
I'm not surprised by the deathly quiet from the other candidates regarding this issue.
They've also been pretty quiet after registering and not bothering to introduce themselves.
labour aren't in the running and their candidate ran but was unsuccessful in Cheadle last time around! I would have hoped from something from the Conservatives though, but reassuring to see that Steve doesn't support a charging CAZ. A lone voice perhaps amongst the Lib dems?
-
I do get that impression, the labour candidate is also the green.
Do they have to put a deposit down as per the MP elections ?.
I'm not saying being a 3rd horse in a two horse race is a waste but if they do pay who's money is it ?
-
seems labour's stance from their candidate is as follows... sadly, most of it is the usual labour spin and Burnham sycophancy and it misses entirely the fact that it was Labour who, having firstly asked the government to allow them to include GM in their list of cities targeted for clean air zones, then took it upon themselves to make it,
a... a category C charging zone and
b... 493 square miles.
The alleged 1200 deaths per year don't get a mention, perhaps because they are hearsay and not based on actual data nor does the fact that the current quality of air in all but two of the 497 diffusion tube measuring sites across GM are well with acceptable levels. (https://cleanairgm.com/data-hub/diffusion-tubes)
....
Labour is committed to improving air quality, working towards enhancing environmental standards, and defending our green spaces.
Labour is also aware of the cost of living crisis, and would not support putting an extra burden on consumers.
Our cast iron commitment to you:
We will not support the inclusion of vans in any Clean Air Zone and will push the Tories for a non-charging zone for all affected vehicles
Any plan put forward by Labour would not include a charge on:
Cars
Motorhomes,
Campervans
vans (LGVs)
Labour would resist any Tory plan to charge in any clean air zone. If the Tories attempt to impose these charges, Labour will fight to ensure there is adequate compensation for those motorists who would be affected.
In terms of where things stand currently on CAZ:
The Government have agreed with GM leaders that the original Clean Air Zone that was due to be implemented from May 2022 is no longer viable – but the Government haven’t lifted the directive on the GM councils to implement a Clean Air Zone but rather to delay it to 2026 at the latest for implementation but preferably sooner.
As such the Government have agreed that GM can put a new proposal forward. The preferred option is for a non-charging zone, and that has to be presented to Government by July 1st - and then we await their decision whether or not that meets Government’s agreement and approval.
Public consultation would then be on be on a new proposal once agreed. If elected, I will be working very hard to raise awareness of the consultation among residents in Marple North through a variety of methods (e.g. leaflets, social media posts and street stalls - using a range of engagement methods helps to make sure as many people as possible are informed)
-
Why do they always have to make everything read like some sermon or manifesto!.
Most is cut and paste party produced blurb, with the end being the possibly the candidate which even then doesn't have any opinion or substance.
So it's as usual between conservative and liberal, Steve was atleast pragmatic. Everyone else has remained tight lipped.
-
Well, I may very well not vote. I don't want a councillor who stands for a political party; I want someone with their own views, who will not be swayed by party politics. I really do wonder if the political philosophers of the Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem parties have an opinion on filling in potholes on particular roads, or what to do about a swimming pool for Marple. I doubt it. These are local matters in which party politics should not have a place.
Are all Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem candidates the same; of course not, yet so many people vote bases on party labels. This is ridiculous. Do all Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem run councils do the same things; no they don't. Conservative councils differ; Labour councils differ; Lib Dem councils differ, as circumstances in different places differ, so simple looking at a party label is not a meaningful as it might seems.
I don't think local government will improve until party politics is removed, at least as far as possible and the only way that will happen is if voters stop electing party candidates.
-
I can think of nothing worse than a council full of off philosophically rudderless councillors. They call themselves independents but in fact very often bend and sway in the wind of uninformed public opinion or even worse are influenced by the keyboard warriors who so often try to bully local councillors, council officers or indeed other members of the public. If you vote for a Tory Councillor you have a general idea of the sort of policies you are going to get similarly Liberal Democrats and Labour. The keyboard warriors also very often fail to recognise that when we vote next Thursday we are electing councillors to serve the whole town not just our own ward. There are many strategic decisions that need to be taken as well as Local ones and for that we needs councillors with a clear political base and group structure with whipped decisions. For example do you think Marple will ever get a new swimming pool unless councillors from Cheadle, the Heatons Brinnington etc are whipped to vote for it and certainly independent councillors in those areas would never vote of it. Independents have no significant role to play in councils of over a quarter of a million people and which make multi million pound decisions.
-
Sadly that's the difference between electing an MP and the present council and the raft of local councillors.
Whilst I make no secret of my more little c polititical leanings especially when it's towards national politics and voting for the MP.
Councillor wise the conservatives for lack of a better word have not even tried to gain any support within any part of Marple.
-
We will.... push the Tories for a non-charging zone for all affected vehicles ...... The preferred option is for a non-charging zone, and that has to be presented to Government by July 1st.
Maybe I'm just being dim, but how would a 'non-charging' zone work? If there's no charge, then what is the incentive for drivers to switch to less polluting vehicles, which is presumably what the charge is intended to achieve.
-
Maybe I'm just being dim, but how would a 'non-charging' zone work?
it wouldn't!
despite Labour having opted for a charging zone in the first place and then back-tracking and blaming others, non-charging (for now at least whilst there's an election looming) is merely the thin end of the wedge. Once established as a "zone" with cameras and infrastructure, it's a giant cash machine that just needs the switch flicking to "charge-mode" that hits those who can least afford it. Labour will argue that to be able to provide all the Utopean ideals they promise you, the funding needs to come from somewhere........... YOU!
-
Then it's the sticky slope of charging per mile and other green agenda ideas forcing you to pay through the nose, before implementation of the you will own nothing and be happy.
-
Thanks for the replies. Still a bit mystified, I headed for this website in search of enlightenment: https://cleanairgm.com/
I'm still none the wiser, but I did find this brief paragraph about non-charging CAZs:
'Non-charging Clean Air Zones: Defined geographic areas used as a focus for action to improve air quality. This action can take a range of forms but does not include the use of charge-based access restrictions.'
'A range of forms' ::) .... or to put it another way 'we haven't got a clue'. Apparently GM is supposed to be coming up with a revised scheme by 1 July. I'll believe it when I see it........
-
They say the devil is in the details, however from experience the more ambiguous and airy the answer the less of a clue they actually have.
But rest assured they'll find a way to make you pay more, what was the 1950s phrase, nuclear energy too cheap to meter.
-
Nobody has yet been able to articulate what's wrong with a CAZ it seems to me an excellent idea as does charging per mile.
-
Nobody has yet been able to articulate what's wrong with a CAZ it seems to me an excellent idea as does charging per mile.
-
How on earth did you get the inspirational poster from the offices of CAZ scheme ?.
-
#jimblob I think you make my point very well. Well done.
-
In all honesty is that really what you want our world to look like wheels?.
-
In all honesty is that really what you want our world to look like wheels?.
Ermm -yes? What's up with it? The cosrt of fuel is rising, the cost of living is rising, bikes are way cheaper than cars and far better for your health
If you think we can continue with the status quo then you really need to step back and look at the problems cars cause.
If you think the Clean Air Zone is unnecsssary, can I suggest you check your addresss here
https://www.addresspollution.org/
-
If you believe anything like that linked website I think you might need to do a little better research.
We covered air quality before, there was zero cause for any concern according to actual recorded data across the whole of greater Manchester!.
Websites like that are the digital version of hysterical screeching by the stop oil and other activists
-
https://www.addresspollution.org/
@nbt , are you able to provide information that validates the results when using this website?
Manchester's own website... https://cleanairgm.com/data-hub/diffusion-tubes/
tells a totally different picture of only 2 out of 497 diffusion tubes indicating that targets are not being met across the whole of GM
-
Have a read on the about us section on the website, my hysterical screeching comment is probably underplaying they're levels of screeching.
-
Just to prove how much of a con that website is I put mellor cross as the address.
It said medium air pollution and exceeds three who limits, for lacking another word b...s comes to mind
-
In all honesty is that really what you want our world to look like wheels?.
Well it's certainly better than how our roads look so yes. Surely that's better than what we have now.
-
So in your idealised world we are all forced to return to the 1900s, just because of a few traffic jams.
Next you’ll be suggesting we run around destroying all technologies in some modern era Luddite rebellion!.
-
So in your idealised world we are all forced to return to the 1900s, just because of a few traffic jams.
Next you’ll be suggesting we run around destroying all technologies in some modern era Luddite rebellion!.
Marple, the new home of the Amish! although...
I blame the invention of the wheel @wheels / @GM ... it's been downhill ever since!
-
On the plus side if it’s Amish, doesn’t that mean no bicycles?.
-
On the plus side if it’s Amish, doesn’t that mean no bicycles?.
It depends https://amishamerica.com/do-amish-ride-bicycles/ (https://amishamerica.com/do-amish-ride-bicycles/)
-
Would that atleast save humanity from the scourge of unflattering and sweaty lycra ?.
-
If you think the Clean Air Zone is unnecsssary, can I suggest you check your addresss here
https://www.addresspollution.org/
I've done that - it's a joke! We live on an unadopted road some way from any significant traffic, and surrounded by fields, and yet it says we have 'significant air pollution'! Maybe it's the cows at the bottom of the garden?
As we know, this is the reality: https://mappinggm.org.uk/clean-air-plan/#os_maps_light/10/53.4770/-2.2723
It shows that there are pollution 'hotspots' in GM, marked on the map in red for serious excess pollution and orange for moderate excess pollution. As you see, the only marks within Marple, which are orange, are on the short stretch of road between the bottom of Dan Bank and Seventeen Windows, and on a bit of the A6 at High Lane. Otherwise there is no problem in or around Marple.
There are clean air zones being introduced in towns and cities across the UK, but in other places they are being set up in a targeted way, focusing on city centres where the pollution is most serious. But here in GM, for some weird reason, the decision has been taken to introduce a scheme covering the entire 500 square miles of Greater Manchester! It's crazy and its unnecessary.
-
Must be all those tail backs at milking time!.
And on that note, I'm here all week try the veal.
-
Well, as far as I am concerned, to get my vote a candidate would need to
Reject the clean air zone
Reject all new schemes for changes to roads; e.g. one way systems or any form of "traffic calming" or restrictions.
Reject most if not all schemes for house building
Support the removal of all speed humps; especially those on Windlehurst road.
I don't think any will.
Regrettably, we will get a party candidate elected, which I continue to maintain is fundamentally undemocratic.
-
Well, as far as I am concerned, to get my vote a candidate would need to
Reject the clean air zone
Reject all new schemes for changes to roads; e.g. one way systems or any form of "traffic calming" or restrictions.
Reject most if not all schemes for house building
Support the removal of all speed humps; especially those on Windlehurst road.
I don't think any will.
Regrettably, we will get a party candidate elected, which I continue to maintain is fundamentally undemocratic.
Can I vote for you @Condate
-
Well to beat Shan we would need 2299 from the 2021 results, so that's another 2297 or 2296 if you atleast voted for yourself!.
-
Well to beat Shan we would need 2299 from the 2021 results, so that's another 2297 or 2296 if you atleast voted for yourself!.
Its an all out next year.
All councillors in Stockport are up and its three votes for every elector.
-
Does that include the ones just elected ?.
-
Does that include the ones just elected ?.
Yes, the wards have been redrawn for the first time since 2004. Both North and South are the same, but new wards means all sitting councillors stand for election once again throughout the entire council.
Whomever gets the most votes get a four year term, second a 3 year term and third a 1 year term off the top of my head for each ward.
-
I'll have to have a look into that.
Seems a little weird but it might help break up the current three way tag team stagnation arrangement.
Obviously I don't hold much hope, especially if it means even more spending on local elections. And if the stalemate within the council doesn't change.