Devil is in C-charge detail

Richard Butt
8/ 7/2008

SO THE consultation period for the Transport Innovation Fund (and the congestion charge) has officially begun.

I trust all the residents of Greater Manchester will have read, ingested and properly understood every dot and comma of the details of the proposals before they vote – if they get to vote in a referendum on it.

In fact, it’ll probably be fewer than those who read manifestos before voting in general elections. Most people will learn the details through the media.

The problem with the arguments in favour of the TIF bid is that they’re more complicated than the arguments against.

It means talking about promises about tram lines – promises the government has already broken. It means talking about changing the way people behave.

Some of the proponents talk about things such as social inclusion and the environment – things that turn a lot of people off, even though they’re jolly important.

The anti argument is simpler. You’ll have to pay a fiver a day to get to work and back.

The fact that most people won’t and that it’s only at peak time is lost. Promises about better public transport figure nowhere.

Manchester Council leader Sir Richard Leese has blogged that the TIF bid is "widely misunderstood".

At a Chamber of Commerce briefing, I asked Chris Oglesby, a boss at the property company Bruntwood and a leading member of the pro-TIF bid business group United City, whether he supported having a referendum on the issue.

His answer was: "Can we have a grown-up discussion about it, or is it going to just degenerate into a ‘no we don’t want the congestion charge’? Because it’s not about a congestion charge, it’s about £3bn worth of new investment."

I interrupted with: "Sounds like you don’t trust the voters."

He replied: "It’s not that I don’t trust the voters. I do trust the voters. I don’t trust the way in which society works at the moment in terms of communicating serious issues."

So how does society communicate serious (or even frivolous) issues? Through the media.

If the pro-TIF people have already resorted to shooting the messenger, things must be bad.

I went on to ask Chris about councillors’ proposals to build themselves a car park under the Peace Gardens near the town hall, in part to replace spaces lost when Lloyd Street is pedestrianised.

His knee-jerk response was that the story must have been "misreported".

In fact, many hours after the Manchester Evening News published the story, the council came back with a sweetened pill – some spaces might be available for town hall visitors.

The question of why councillors and top town hall officials can’t be like the rest of us and get the bus, the tram, walk or pay for parking hasn’t really been answered.

Okay, councillors are not paid, but they do get expenses. Couldn’t they park in a commercial place and then claim it back?

What better way could there be to get the improvements we need than for the decision makers to get as annoyed as the rest of us with the petty inconveniences of life?

And leading by example would certainly make it easier for them to sell the idea of the TIF.

Richard Butt edits Channel M’s early evening news – every weeknight from 5pm