LibDem mayoral candidate Brian Paddick is a real chip off the old block when it comes to his party’s ‘Goody bag’ policy lucky dip tradition- his broadside against the higher C-Charge for Chelsea tractors fits uneasily against the London Lib Dems’ stated support for charging. Or does it? Well it all depends on who you read, of course; Party economics spokesman Chris Huhne:
“Some say green taxes would shrink with changes in behaviour, thereby undermining tax revenues. But that is to misunderstand the economics:
So that’s clear then isn’t it? Ah but Lynne Featherstone, that noted intellectual has also spoken out against the charge, and so have Edinburgh Lib Dems who have taken to the streets against it in defiance of the party’s written policy. Just goes to show that whatever your views on Congestion charging (or the Euro, Airport expansion, incinerators, just as with by-passes, the Trans-European Road network, M74 upgrading etc etc, there’s a LibDem for you. Isn’t that comforting?
*The references are here http://www.glalibdems.org.uk/news/000307/lib_dems_unveil_double_congestion_charge_suv_list.html
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/3698407.stm for
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/20/london08.climatechange
2 comments:
I think you are confusing supporting congestion charging with supporting any and every congestion charging proposal, regardless of its details.
I don't see any contradiction between supporting the general idea, and some schemes, while also saying of other schemes, "But the details of this one wouldn't work, so it shouldn't be done".
Woof woof.
Agreed (with your general point) but specifically the LibDem policy states an agreement with the policy of stepped charges (see Chris Huhne ref) whereas Paddick has vociferously opposed it. I would have thought there ought to be some consistency to present to would-be voters?
BS
Post a Comment