Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It'll come sooner or later anyway but this is just Government sabre rattling at the moment and playing politics: Conservative Government vs Labour Mayor.


Won't happen now not least because it would take months of planning, installation and implementation and would cost millions.

Interestingly, if we are to have a daily congestion charge imposed on us willy-nilly if we live within the North and South Circular (and keep our cars there, and why wouldn't we) and if we are to have our travel concessions removed, and if we are to live in an area so poorly served by public transport, hilly and far from town - well I suspect I will be using my car (as a pensioner) a great deal more than previously, when I tried to use public transport a lot. If it costs me no more (other than petrol) to get to a station than it does to get to Central London - then I will be driving. At my age and vulnerability sitting in my own car, even in a jam, will take no longer, and be a lot safer, than travelling with the mask-less public (today I estimated between 2% and 5% of passengers had no mask, or didn't think noses counted).


If you need a car at all, and I do, then you may as well make full use of it, if you are to be charged for using it at all. Why would you do anything else?

Thing is, how is it OK for a Govt to specify that people should buy diesel cars (because they're / were seen as better for the envt) then tell them their cars will now incur a daily penalty for just parking, as they always have, on their own street.

If half of London has bought cars the Govt advised them to, it's not OK to suddenly change course and tell those people who followed the guidelines they're now wrong. While somehow spectacularly making ?millions in penalising those car owners.

This doesn't instil (as if any were possible these days..) much trust in the Govt.

1) this isn't supposed to be a policy that makes sense. It's supposed to be a policy that screws over Sadiq Khan and doesn't cost anything.


2) the government didn't specify that people should buy diesel cars


3) the science around diesel has changed since the diesel boom of the 2000s. Non-diesel technologies have got better and cheaper.


4) the congestion charge is the same for normal hybrid, petrol and diesel cars. In a couple of years there will be no discounts for ultra efficient hybrids.


5) when the congestion charge was introduced and then expanded - people who'd parked for free had to pay. That's how the congestion charge works!

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interestingly, if we are to have a daily

> congestion charge imposed on us willy-nilly if we

> live within the North and South Circular (and keep

> our cars there, and why wouldn't we) and if we are

> to have our travel concessions removed, and if we

> are to live in an area so poorly served by public

> transport, hilly and far from town - well I

> suspect I will be using my car (as a pensioner) a

> great deal more than previously, when I tried to

> use public transport a lot. If it costs me no more

> (other than petrol) to get to a station than it

> does to get to Central London - then I will be

> driving. At my age and vulnerability sitting in my

> own car, even in a jam, will take no longer, and

> be a lot safer, than travelling with the mask-less

> public (today I estimated between 2% and 5% of

> passengers had no mask, or didn't think noses

> counted).

>

> If you need a car at all, and I do, then you may

> as well make full use of it, if you are to be

> charged for using it at all. Why would you do

> anything else?


Totally agree 100%!

Those areas were excluded by Boris Johnson when he was mayor (it was one of his campaign promises)


They would be included in the government-proposed extension to the north and south circulars. Boris Johnson is PM.


My guess would be that some wise guy sees it as a way to


a) raise lots of money and come closer to pollution targets


b) blame their political opponents

In some local areas, pensioners paid an annual fee of around ?25 to get their free travel pass. My father who lived in Sussex did this when his eyesight failed and he could not drive. He lived in a village which was 8 miles to nearest town and in the late 90s/early 2000s, the return fare was ?9 by bus which ran every half hour.

Not sure what the procedure is now that Freedom passes can be used all over UK.


Not sure about removing free travel for under 18s- we had to get a weekly bus pass for our girls when they went to secondary school. The argument for removing it would be to stop youngsters hopping on bus for a couple of stops.

I think it would be reasonable to charge most Freedom pass holders a small amount each year if the alternative is having no free pass. ?20-30? Those on pension credit or who have another marker for reduced means wouldn?t pay. Likewise, how about a ?10-15 charge for young people, waived if parents are in receipt of certain amount of benefits. It?d be better if it were not chargeable but times are harder than usual.

That's new (ish). I didn't pay for mine.


The costs will be rising as the OAP age rises because the over-60s pass fills the gap until the oap Freedom pass.


The trouble with means-testing is that it can be more expensive than not ie the admin associated with the means test out weighs any saving.

Pugwash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In some local areas, pensioners paid an annual fee

> of around ?25 to get their free travel pass. My

> father who lived in Sussex did this when his

> eyesight failed and he could not drive. He lived

> in a village which was 8 miles to nearest town and

> in the late 90s/early 2000s, the return fare was

> ?9 by bus which ran every half hour.

> Not sure what the procedure is now that Freedom

> passes can be used all over UK.

>

> Not sure about removing free travel for under 18s-

> we had to get a weekly bus pass for our girls when

> they went to secondary school. The argument for

> removing it would be to stop youngsters hopping on

> bus for a couple of stops.


Paying for bus fares also encourages people to look closer to home for a school so that their child/teen can walk

Paying for bus fares also encourages people to look closer to home for a school so that their child/teen can walk


Well, absolutely, convenience and the cost of a bus fare trumps the schools facilities, teaching quality, 'fit' with your children's needs and reputation any time! At least it means the employed middle class can afford to send their children to the best state schools, regardless of the bus fares. Which is only right.

Its not always possible for a child to go to school within walking distance of home. My grand daughter was turned down for all the primary schools close to her home. If her parents hadn't been able to drive her to the school she was eventually allocated, it would have meant a two bus journey of nearly an hour each way.

With the possible extension of the Congestion Charge to the South Circular back in the news this morning (confirmed to be a UK Government condition of any longer term bailout of TfL) I thought I would check how much of ED would be in the resident's discount zone.


What I didn't appreciate, and which hasn't been publicised at all, is that the resident's discount has also been suspended to any new entrants as part of the earlier package of measures - so if this extension did go ahead, it would involve all of us paying full price congestion charge to drive in and out (south) of ED. What I can't work out is whether journeys within the zone would be chargeable too or whether it is only driving in and out of the zone. Any one know?


Someone said on one of the other threads that this looked like a really smart long game by the Government to put Labour voting areas under strain and drive down support for other parties. If this is seriously the plan, I'm starting to think that might actually be true. It's a pattern, for sure.


For balance, it would also do more to drive down car journeys in our area than any LTN, but as usual it would be the less well off people in our area who would suffer the most.

Not a fan of extending the cc, it's a very blunt instrument. We should have progressed with road charging, something that comes up from time to time but politically a very hot potato. The fairest system, where you get charged for when you drive and where you drive. But as an occasional driver disappointed with successive governments for not putting up fuel duty, the unholy alliance of hauliers and farmers in 2000 put back the environmental cause so much.


Before you all dissolve into a puddle with rage check out this article which gives you a great perspective on road pricing. If we want to play our part in tackling climate change we have to get over this concept that we are entitled to drive what we like, when we like, how we like and where we like. https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/road-pricing


As an occasional user of public transport I'm happy to subsidise the masses.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...