They are separate policies – you can have one, the other, both or neither.

Just because you insist on having both or neither doesn’t mean everyone else has to go for that too.

My own view is yes to congestion charging, and even yes to the western zone – if it was a separate zone, and yes in general to emissions charging.

That means though I’m against Ken’s policy.

That view does not fit the way you insist on asking the question. Does that mean you think my view is invalid and should not be allowed?

But putting that to one side, it isn’t muddying the water to ask about emissions charging – it’s key. By introducing an emissions dimension and abolishing the residents’ discount for Band G cars it will be a massive weapon in the attempt to reduce emissions because Kensington and Chelsea has one of the largest concentration of these cars anywhere. I can’t see why you won’t support this.

Genuinely, you haven’t answered my question about whether you support emissions charging across the whole zone including the western zone.

Can you please let me know your (and your party’s) view on this?

I think the issue around 4 x 4s muddies the water about the problems with the extension of the zone. As I have tried to point out – the original arguments against the extension of the zone were about how well it might work in terms of reducing congestion – which is in my view is the criteria to judge it by. And if the extension doesn’t work on those grounds, then throwing a green veneer on it doesn’t make it all ok.

Outside of that – yes – congestion charging should be geared to higher charges for more polluting vehicles.

She has not said if she/the LibDems support the application of the emissions based charging scheme (which will charge 4x4s eye-watering amounts whilst cutting the charge for green vehicles) across the whole congestion charge area, east and west.

It’s a fair question and I hope that Lynne will clarify it (and Geoff Pope for that matter.

I am surprised that you say the LibDems don’t support this. I think that would be a mistake.

Lynne, can you clarify?

I am sure your point-scoring against Ken Livingstone is very interesting to you but it’s of no interest to me at all. Perhaps you have been seduced by Westminster’s yah-boo political atmosphere.

But more to the point, you haven’t answered the question.

It would be really nice if you did. It will affect how I perceive the LibDems when it comes to the Assembly elections.

Thanks

Anyway – the reasons for opposing the extension aren’t just about 4 x 4s – there were lots of reasons. The original zone had a work / live logic. The new zone was to be made one big zone rather than a separate zone – which would have been more palatable. There were a lot of issues around the traders on the new proposed boundaries. There were areas that were cut off inappropriately. And Geoff has explained in his comments current problems with the scheme.

Just because congestion charging and charging polluting vehicles more makes sense on some occasions, that doesn’t somehow mean that any and every scheme involving them is therefore a good idea. That’s the sort of crude one-size-fits-all and damn the local circumstances arrogance that means Labour so often gets things wrong. Trying to give a green tinge to a wrong policy doesn’t make that policy ok after all.

Regrettably Ken appears to be more interested in his tax raising powers as opposed to problem solving. I remain committed to problem solving based on solutions that fit the local circumstances.

I think there is a big hole in the position set out by Pope – he opposed the western extension, which means he opposed the vital piece of the jigsaw that will catch the worst concentration of these hideous Chelsea Tractors.

He’s gone on about the residents’ discout, but that would be abolished in the move to the emissions charge.

Geoff Pope says he and the LibDems are against the western extension of the congestion charge. So are the Liberal Democrats/Geoff Pope/Lynne Featherstone for or against the application of emissions-charging in the western zone? An answer would be nice.

Except of course that traffic is visibly – and statistically – down. So all you have done is oppose a traffic reduction measure.

But putting that to one side, Geoff’s comments studiously don’t address the question here about emissions-based charging.

Geoff Pope’s comments don’t stack up over the 90 per cent discount in terms of emissions-based charging. The proposal for emissions-based charging – which would see many 4x4s and other Band G cars paying £25 – explicitly includes the abolition of the residents’ discount for Band G cars. See the press releases and coverage when it was announced.

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=9871

As you state that ‘The London Assembly LibDems opposed the western extension because it positively encourages the very large number of Kensington and Chelsea residents who own cars to drive them into central London’ because of the discount, doesn’t this logically mean that you would support the western extension if the discount is withdrawn?

As Ken Livingstone is indeed proposing to withdraw the discount for the worst offending cars in terms of climate change, you have ended up opposing an extension that will in fact ensure that a very high number of 4x4s are affected.

As David Cameron is backing this principle in terms of air travel it would make sense for you to back it in terms of cars – but excluding the cars in the western part of the zone as you have done means cutting out the highest concentration of the problem.

As Ken Livingstone will put this to Londoners I hope that the Liberal Democrats will back him.

Geoff/Lynne, will you end your opposition to the western extension and back the emissions scheme to charge band G cars £25 across the whole zone?

The Mayor should be using state-of-the-art “tag and beacon” technology (as in Oslo, Stockholm and Singapore) which TfL have already trialled successfully in Southwark. He should work with London Boroughs to target congestion ‘hotspots’ such as outer London town centres. The new technology is much more flexible and can be used for smaller but more effective traffic reduction schemes. The Mayor has admitted to me in the Assembly that all that is holding him back is the Labour government’s refusal to take road-pricing forward this side of a General Election.