London Congestion Charge Increasing to £8

The increase in the London Congestion Charge was announced this afternoon by Ken Livingston ( as reported in The Guardian).

I do not object to the congestion charge and I believe there were visible benefits in terms of the easing of traffic flow when the charge was first introduced. However, since businesses and individuals have now adjusted to having this charge it has become no different to any other cost in life, merely no different to income tax and council tax, which people have come to expect and account for - therefore its effective has been lost and will always be in due time.

The increase of the cost of the charge is but only one strategy to improving its effectiveness. Sadly this is only for the short term. Once businesses (in particular) and individuals have taken this into account, there will be a reversion to "normal" levels of traffic. Clearly the politicians see this as another cash cow to milk. Ken Livingstone has said that it will raise an additional £45m per year for transport projects. I think its time we ask "please explain?".

As a resident within the congestion charge zone, my only gripe is about the manner in which residents are charged. Residents that have resided within the zone since well before the inception of the congestion charge have been hard done by even with the illusory 90% discounted advertised. It is illusory because of the minimum 5 day purchase requirement. Currently residents are only required to pay 10% of each daily charge but because it is subject to a minimum of 5 days (purely and simply because of the administrative issues), any outing within the zone even for as little as 1 second (unless you avoid the cameras) will cost you £2.50 - it is therefore at best only a 50% discount.

Surely now, given that Ken Livingstone will raise another £45m, they can organise the computer system to simply operate like any electronic toll system operated the world around. The reason for this administrative cost is not transparent but essentially what it means in effect for residents is that we are forced to pay £2.50 per use regardless of your requirements. In future under the £8 a day charge this presumably will increase to £4.

This is clearly an additional tax on residents based purely on the choice of residence. My message to Ken is please invest some of that £45m to developing an automated system that will treat residents fairly. I don't mind having a user-pay system but a minimum 5 day payment is not fair nor equitable.

BA charging more for Internet bookings

As reported in The Guardian, 21/01/05 today, BA will begin charging from May 05 an Internet booking fee for all tickets bought through their online porthole in response to lobbying by high street travel agents.

This is the most ridiculous development in recent years. The whole point of the Internet is to remove significant costs of a normal "bricks 'n mortar" business to provide the cheapest product for the consumer and ultimately improve your bottom line.

Having successfully lured members of the British public to use the Internet for online bookings on the BA porthole they now wish to penalise them for having developed their own "travel-agenting" skills. Perhaps it's time to consider whether high street travel agents are redundant in this new world of online-savvy consumers.

Celebrity Culture

Why is that everyone is obsessed with so called "celebrities"? The worst kinds are those that are not even known for any achievement or contribution to society but purely and simply by virtue their appearance on television (a reality programme of course) or their association with someone else who has achieved (see para 6 of a recent article regarding a gameshow winner - The Guardian, 21/01/05).

We see it time and time again and is it my dislike of it driven by jealousy? I don't think so. My agenda is primarily focussed on my own success and my own piece of the pie in this world.

Perhaps I am degrading the "achievement" of any D-grade "celebrity" that has sufficient nous and savvy to ride the gravy train for all it's worth before de-railing and enjoying the fruits of "their labour". If it is better to have achieved a modicum of fame or infamy as compared to an everlasting legacy then perhaps it would be.

Volkswagen Polo Ad "Polo: Small but tough"

This is an advertisement which maybe amusing at first glance but much more serious once you have a chance to consider the subject or context employed by the creator of the advertisement and it's not just any undertone or hidden message. There is nothing "hidden" about the subject either.

It's described by the industry as a "viral advertisement" which relies on the internet as a form of distribution as they are commonly in bad taste and not suitable for the usual distribution medium of television.

Volkswagen have denied culpability and blamed the "two young creatives who are trying to make a name for themselves". They went on to say "We don't take these sorts of risks with our advertisements. We regard ourselves as honest and respectable".

At the end of the day, culpability aside someone had to have commissioned the piece afterall for it to have come into existence. Experts have said that the viral advertisment could have costed up to £40,000 to make.

http://ad-rag.com/117074.php

You can view the advertisement yourself at the above URL.

This is what the producer of the advertisment had to say. (Quote from The Guardian Unlimited, 20/01/05)

"Lee", who refused to give his surname, apologised for the spoof advert, which he said was released accidentally, but refused to say who funded it.

"We made the advert for Volkswagen," said Lee. "We never really intended it for public consumption. It was principally something we made to show people in the industry but it got out somehow.

"About half the work we do is for our own purpose, it is self-promotional. The ad's a comment on what's happening at the moment. People see this on the news every day," said Lee, who operates a website himself, leeanddan.com

Notwithstanding that it was only intended for "private" industry use it represents poor taste and a poor choice of context to extol the virtues of the subject matter - a small but tough car. The producers of the advertisement have showcased their creative talent well but I'm sure they will be more sensitive and responsible in future - hopefully without of course being overly "PC" - there is nothing worse then stemming or stopping creative juices purely in fear of not offending anyone. To create something that does not offend anyone is akin to creating some bland and flavourless and without provocation and stimuli we may as well watch grass grow. It will end up stifling all that is good and worthy of being created and remove all pleasure from what can be beautiful and meaningful.

Cup & saucer