Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Red Wall poll has LAB winning ALL the seats back – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On topic, perhaps Liz Truss wasn't so bad after all.

    Admittedly she's never said "6 million Jews should die" or sung the national anthem in this style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzIk2pUuNU , but still.
    I’m midway through Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. Boy is it grim reading. Humans are nasty pieces of work.
    I like to think of us as having boundless capacity to do good and bad.

    We do appear unfortunately more prone to the latter than the former, or being herded that way, despite being more inclined personally to do good on the whole.
    I disagree. Thousands of little and large selfless good acts occur every day. But the only things that get reported are the bad deeds, because they are far more newsworthy. "Man donates kidney to stranger" would be a story on page 15 of the Westmoreland Gazette; "man stabs man in drunken brawl" would be front page.

    In all seriousness, there are massive numbers of small good acts going on all around us. We just tend not to notice them.
    BBC should have mandatory good news quota. I'd think even 15% minimum positive news stories per week would have a significant impact on national psyche and cohesion over the long term.

    Doesn't work for a commercial broadcaster as bad and dramatic news sells better, but absolutely something that could fit within the BBC remit.
    ...
    10 dead in tragic train explosion.

    On the lighter side, Mittins the Kitten, the charming feline lost on the London Underground, has been found alive and well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,385
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On topic, perhaps Liz Truss wasn't so bad after all.

    Admittedly she's never said "6 million Jews should die" or sung the national anthem in this style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzIk2pUuNU , but still.
    I’m midway through Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. Boy is it grim reading. Humans are nasty pieces of work.
    I like to think of us as having boundless capacity to do good and bad.

    We do appear unfortunately more prone to the latter than the former, or being herded that way, despite being more inclined personally to do good on the whole.
    I disagree. Thousands of little and large selfless good acts occur every day. But the only things that get reported are the bad deeds, because they are far more newsworthy. "Man donates kidney to stranger" would be a story on page 15 of the Westmoreland Gazette; "man stabs man in drunken brawl" would be front page.

    In all seriousness, there are massive numbers of small good acts going on all around us. We just tend not to notice them.
    BBC should have mandatory good news quota. I'd think even 15% minimum positive news stories per week would have a significant impact on national psyche and cohesion over the long term.

    Doesn't work for a commercial broadcaster as bad and dramatic news sells better, but absolutely something that could fit within the BBC remit.
    ...
    10 dead in tragic train explosion.

    On the lighter side, Mittins the Kitten, the charming feline lost on the London Underground, has been found alive and well.
    For a moment I thought that was a real news item and wishing we had the 'wtf' button back.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,134
    Ghedebrav said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Farooq said:

    Miklosvar said:

    American comedian Roseanne Barr has been criticised for a podcast interview in which she said that six million Jews 'should be killed.'

    In a conversation with provocative comedian Theo Von, Barr, 70, said the Holocaust never happened, "but should have" as "Jews cause all the problems in the world."


    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/disgraced-american-comedian-roseanne-barr-says-6-million-jews-should-die-7AKu8J3kY2CJkAShswdmGj

    I mean I’m not generally in favour of cancelling people for what they say, but in what world could that possibly be remotely acceptable?
    America.

    Remember Trump fans chant 'Jews will not replace us.'
    T.S. Eliot, in 1946, said the holocaust was all very well but if the jews kept breeding we were only a couple of generations away from having exactly the same problems as it was meant to solve. I wish I could say that this exposes the essential worthlessness of The Waste Land and 4 Quartets, but it doesn't. But I have a real ethical dilemma, is it still right to read him?
    Here's a little tip for you to help answer your question. You aren't reading him, you're reading his work.

    Reading someone's work doesn't endorse what they are saying in that work, let alone the wider life of the author. Knowing what you know might affect your enjoyment, but that's not a "should" question.

    He, of course, can no longer benefit from sales of his work so your conscience ought to be free from any troubling questions along those lines too.
    Does that mean it's ok to rewatch "Jim'll Fix It" now? Because I have some fond childhood memories which are terribly conflicted.
    I get the point, but there is a bit of a balancing act between the badness of the behaviour and the merit of the work (with perhaps an element of time passing moderating the former). Kanye straddles it; Michael Jackson *maybe* does too; phenomenal musician, but… and then you’ve got the likes of Gary Glitter or Lostprophets, who nobody misses.

    There are some tricky ones - Lewis Carroll is one I struggle with. I have zero doubt he was a paedophile, even if he was chaste. But Alice stands in the pantheon of literature.
    That's right. How bad the crime vs how good/important the work. Plus a time passed adjustment. For me Jackson is a true great and passes (so no cancel) but that's just my opinion. Your template is correct.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    Truthfully, I think anyone who visits London a couple of times a year by car is mad.

    Much better to drive to a nice convenient station and catch a train.

    Edit - and I'm not totally sure I'd limit the madness to those who only visit a couple of times a year. Horrible place to drive.
    Exactly. Lots of Wembley visitors might park in Ruislip and get the train from there to Wembley.

    Problem - Ruislip in the new ULEZ zone.
    So park at Haddenham instead.
    Haddenham? Why not just park in Birmingham? :lol:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,835

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    The last time I rode on the Underground, it wasn't diesel or steam powered.
    LU also has fluffers to keep things neat...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluffer_(London_Underground)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yT_PyZH14
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On topic, perhaps Liz Truss wasn't so bad after all.

    Admittedly she's never said "6 million Jews should die" or sung the national anthem in this style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzIk2pUuNU , but still.
    I’m midway through Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. Boy is it grim reading. Humans are nasty pieces of work.
    I like to think of us as having boundless capacity to do good and bad.

    We do appear unfortunately more prone to the latter than the former, or being herded that way, despite being more inclined personally to do good on the whole.
    I disagree. Thousands of little and large selfless good acts occur every day. But the only things that get reported are the bad deeds, because they are far more newsworthy. "Man donates kidney to stranger" would be a story on page 15 of the Westmoreland Gazette; "man stabs man in drunken brawl" would be front page.

    In all seriousness, there are massive numbers of small good acts going on all around us. We just tend not to notice them.
    BBC should have mandatory good news quota. I'd think even 15% minimum positive news stories per week would have a significant impact on national psyche and cohesion over the long term.

    Doesn't work for a commercial broadcaster as bad and dramatic news sells better, but absolutely something that could fit within the BBC remit.
    ...
    10 dead in tragic train explosion.

    On the lighter side, Mittins the Kitten, the charming feline lost on the London Underground, has been found alive and well.
    For a moment I thought that was a real news item and wishing we had the 'wtf' button back.
    It is as real as any story you may read in the Daily Star.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On topic, perhaps Liz Truss wasn't so bad after all.

    Admittedly she's never said "6 million Jews should die" or sung the national anthem in this style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzIk2pUuNU , but still.
    I’m midway through Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. Boy is it grim reading. Humans are nasty pieces of work.
    I like to think of us as having boundless capacity to do good and bad.

    We do appear unfortunately more prone to the latter than the former, or being herded that way, despite being more inclined personally to do good on the whole.
    I disagree. Thousands of little and large selfless good acts occur every day. But the only things that get reported are the bad deeds, because they are far more newsworthy. "Man donates kidney to stranger" would be a story on page 15 of the Westmoreland Gazette; "man stabs man in drunken brawl" would be front page.

    In all seriousness, there are massive numbers of small good acts going on all around us. We just tend not to notice them.
    BBC should have mandatory good news quota. I'd think even 15% minimum positive news stories per week would have a significant impact on national psyche and cohesion over the long term.

    Doesn't work for a commercial broadcaster as bad and dramatic news sells better, but absolutely something that could fit within the BBC remit.
    ...
    10 dead in tragic train explosion.

    On the lighter side, Mittins the Kitten, the charming feline lost on the London Underground, has been found alive and well.
    The amount of people who have found the nextdoor app and are now alarmed about the crime in quite safe neighbourhoods another recent change that will make us divorced from reality because we are unwilling to share the good news that life is generally getting safer.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,835
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On topic, perhaps Liz Truss wasn't so bad after all.

    Admittedly she's never said "6 million Jews should die" or sung the national anthem in this style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzIk2pUuNU , but still.
    I’m midway through Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. Boy is it grim reading. Humans are nasty pieces of work.
    I like to think of us as having boundless capacity to do good and bad.

    We do appear unfortunately more prone to the latter than the former, or being herded that way, despite being more inclined personally to do good on the whole.
    I disagree. Thousands of little and large selfless good acts occur every day. But the only things that get reported are the bad deeds, because they are far more newsworthy. "Man donates kidney to stranger" would be a story on page 15 of the Westmoreland Gazette; "man stabs man in drunken brawl" would be front page.

    In all seriousness, there are massive numbers of small good acts going on all around us. We just tend not to notice them.
    BBC should have mandatory good news quota. I'd think even 15% minimum positive news stories per week would have a significant impact on national psyche and cohesion over the long term.

    Doesn't work for a commercial broadcaster as bad and dramatic news sells better, but absolutely something that could fit within the BBC remit.
    ...
    10 dead in tragic train explosion.

    On the lighter side, Mittins the Kitten, the charming feline lost on the London Underground, has been found alive and well.
    For a moment I thought that was a real news item and wishing we had the 'wtf' button back.
    It is as real as any story you may read in the Daily Star.
    A lapidary statement of profound depth like something from Jean-Paul Sartre.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On topic, perhaps Liz Truss wasn't so bad after all.

    Admittedly she's never said "6 million Jews should die" or sung the national anthem in this style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzIk2pUuNU , but still.
    I’m midway through Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. Boy is it grim reading. Humans are nasty pieces of work.
    I like to think of us as having boundless capacity to do good and bad.

    We do appear unfortunately more prone to the latter than the former, or being herded that way, despite being more inclined personally to do good on the whole.
    I disagree. Thousands of little and large selfless good acts occur every day. But the only things that get reported are the bad deeds, because they are far more newsworthy. "Man donates kidney to stranger" would be a story on page 15 of the Westmoreland Gazette; "man stabs man in drunken brawl" would be front page.

    In all seriousness, there are massive numbers of small good acts going on all around us. We just tend not to notice them.
    BBC should have mandatory good news quota. I'd think even 15% minimum positive news stories per week would have a significant impact on national psyche and cohesion over the long term.

    Doesn't work for a commercial broadcaster as bad and dramatic news sells better, but absolutely something that could fit within the BBC remit.
    ...
    10 dead in tragic train explosion.

    On the lighter side, Mittins the Kitten, the charming feline lost on the London Underground, has been found alive and well.
    For a moment I thought that was a real news item and wishing we had the 'wtf' button back.
    It is as real as any story you may read in the Daily Star.
    Lettuce pray that is not the case.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,385

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    Truthfully, I think anyone who visits London a couple of times a year by car is mad.

    Much better to drive to a nice convenient station and catch a train.

    Edit - and I'm not totally sure I'd limit the madness to those who only visit a couple of times a year. Horrible place to drive.
    Exactly. Lots of Wembley visitors might park in Ruislip and get the train from there to Wembley.

    Problem - Ruislip in the new ULEZ zone.
    So park at Haddenham instead.
    Haddenham? Why not just park in Birmingham? :lol:
    That would mean driving in Birmingham. Even shittier experience than driving in London.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,385
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    TimS said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On topic, perhaps Liz Truss wasn't so bad after all.

    Admittedly she's never said "6 million Jews should die" or sung the national anthem in this style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzIk2pUuNU , but still.
    I’m midway through Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. Boy is it grim reading. Humans are nasty pieces of work.
    I like to think of us as having boundless capacity to do good and bad.

    We do appear unfortunately more prone to the latter than the former, or being herded that way, despite being more inclined personally to do good on the whole.
    I disagree. Thousands of little and large selfless good acts occur every day. But the only things that get reported are the bad deeds, because they are far more newsworthy. "Man donates kidney to stranger" would be a story on page 15 of the Westmoreland Gazette; "man stabs man in drunken brawl" would be front page.

    In all seriousness, there are massive numbers of small good acts going on all around us. We just tend not to notice them.
    BBC should have mandatory good news quota. I'd think even 15% minimum positive news stories per week would have a significant impact on national psyche and cohesion over the long term.

    Doesn't work for a commercial broadcaster as bad and dramatic news sells better, but absolutely something that could fit within the BBC remit.
    ...
    10 dead in tragic train explosion.

    On the lighter side, Mittins the Kitten, the charming feline lost on the London Underground, has been found alive and well.
    For a moment I thought that was a real news item and wishing we had the 'wtf' button back.
    It is as real as any story you may read in the Daily Star.
    Or indeed any explanation you may read from the DfE for their latest epochal fuckup.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,835

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    stodge said:

    Blanche L, with respect to the map of ethnic Europe you posted to last thread, it's very interesting, and gives pretty good picture of situation when it was created between WWI and WW2.

    HOWEVER note that it does have a few inaccuracies, which interestingly pertain to Italy, where the map was published during the rule of Il Duce, which almost certainly explains why:

    > in far northwest corner of Italy, map shows Val d'Aosta as being Italian-speaking, when the local majority language was (and still is) French

    > in northeastern Italy, south of Austria the South Tyrol region is shown as being of mixed language, when majority was German (and still is).

    > shows division of French between south & north, without noting at all the more significant (IIRC) differences within Italy, for example Sardinian which is NOT strictly speaking Italian.

    > map does show Albanian and Greek language islands in southern Italy, as well as Slavic-language speakers in far northeastern Italy, including areas now in Slovenia and Croatia, albeit while understating them compared with Italians.

    I think you'll find Val d'Aosta is mainly Italian-speaking. Some use a French dialect but the majority are Italian speakers.
    Valle d'Aosta.
    Aostathal.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,835

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    Because childrten and other people are demonstrably ill with realk morbidity and mortality at lower levels than is often found in London. And because even electric cars aren't that great pollution wise. Tyre dust, for one thing, is a mjor source of particulates. Never mind the power station exhausts at present.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? As I say, it’s worked fine inside the North Circ and has been hugely successful. Brilliantly implemented and has improved air quality.

    I have been hit with fines for doing 48mph on a smart motorway because I didn’t spot the sign. Hard cheese.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,835
    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    Exactly, so it's the place to expect to see them moaning about not being allowed to eat babies or steal the food from their mouths, or the marginally less unacceptable versions one sees those days.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,986
    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Nobody’s banning cars anyway. They’re not even banning diesel cars. Indeed not even banning old polluting diesel cars, just charging money for them.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Ghedebrav said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Farooq said:

    Miklosvar said:

    American comedian Roseanne Barr has been criticised for a podcast interview in which she said that six million Jews 'should be killed.'

    In a conversation with provocative comedian Theo Von, Barr, 70, said the Holocaust never happened, "but should have" as "Jews cause all the problems in the world."


    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/disgraced-american-comedian-roseanne-barr-says-6-million-jews-should-die-7AKu8J3kY2CJkAShswdmGj

    I mean I’m not generally in favour of cancelling people for what they say, but in what world could that possibly be remotely acceptable?
    America.

    Remember Trump fans chant 'Jews will not replace us.'
    T.S. Eliot, in 1946, said the holocaust was all very well but if the jews kept breeding we were only a couple of generations away from having exactly the same problems as it was meant to solve. I wish I could say that this exposes the essential worthlessness of The Waste Land and 4 Quartets, but it doesn't. But I have a real ethical dilemma, is it still right to read him?
    Here's a little tip for you to help answer your question. You aren't reading him, you're reading his work.

    Reading someone's work doesn't endorse what they are saying in that work, let alone the wider life of the author. Knowing what you know might affect your enjoyment, but that's not a "should" question.

    He, of course, can no longer benefit from sales of his work so your conscience ought to be free from any troubling questions along those lines too.
    Does that mean it's ok to rewatch "Jim'll Fix It" now? Because I have some fond childhood memories which are terribly conflicted.
    I get the point, but there is a bit of a balancing act between the badness of the behaviour and the merit of the work (with perhaps an element of time passing moderating the former). Kanye straddles it; Michael Jackson *maybe* does too; phenomenal musician, but… and then you’ve got the likes of Gary Glitter or Lostprophets, who nobody misses.

    There are some tricky ones - Lewis Carroll is one I struggle with. I have zero doubt he was a paedophile, even if he was chaste. But Alice stands in the pantheon of literature.
    "Chaste paedophile" is surely morally superior to never committed paedophilia because never felt the urge? We mustn't congratulate ourselves on the pure good luck of our sexual urges happening to be in line with contemporary norms

    Unrelatedly, something someone pointed out to me 40 years ago - 3 great literary paedophiles (Swift, Marvell, Carroll) all produced great work (gulliver, Appleton House, Alice) about people drastically changing size, relative or absolute.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,835
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    Truthfully, I think anyone who visits London a couple of times a year by car is mad.

    Much better to drive to a nice convenient station and catch a train.

    Edit - and I'm not totally sure I'd limit the madness to those who only visit a couple of times a year. Horrible place to drive.
    Exactly. Lots of Wembley visitors might park in Ruislip and get the train from there to Wembley.

    Problem - Ruislip in the new ULEZ zone.
    So park at Haddenham instead.
    Haddenham? Why not just park in Birmingham? :lol:
    That would mean driving in Birmingham. Even shittier experience than driving in London.
    Er ...

    https://www.brumbreathes.co.uk/info/32/charges-operation/34/paying-drive-clean-air-zone/2
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,835

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/girls-death-contributed-to-by-air-pollution-coroner-rules-in-landmark-case
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,385
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    Truthfully, I think anyone who visits London a couple of times a year by car is mad.

    Much better to drive to a nice convenient station and catch a train.

    Edit - and I'm not totally sure I'd limit the madness to those who only visit a couple of times a year. Horrible place to drive.
    Exactly. Lots of Wembley visitors might park in Ruislip and get the train from there to Wembley.

    Problem - Ruislip in the new ULEZ zone.
    So park at Haddenham instead.
    Haddenham? Why not just park in Birmingham? :lol:
    That would mean driving in Birmingham. Even shittier experience than driving in London.
    Er ...

    https://www.brumbreathes.co.uk/info/32/charges-operation/34/paying-drive-clean-air-zone/2
    Ok, 'even shittier and barely cheaper experience than driving in London.'

    Happy now?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821
    TimS said:

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Nobody’s banning cars anyway. They’re not even banning diesel cars. Indeed not even banning old polluting diesel cars, just charging money for them.
    £12.50 a DAY? Seriously? Admitting it's purely a revenue-earning exercise in the letter they sent us?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Exactly. We’re already inside the ULEZ. Not controversial here at all.
    I’m a mile outside it and occasionally hear people moan about it but it’s hardly a touchstone issue. Most without complaint cars are - guess what? - changing them.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
    If they state it openly in the letter it's not exactly an amazing scoop to get it from them, even if politicians focus on other reasons.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    ...
    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    And then there are the 50 something males desperate to prove their 'non-gammony' status by being in a tearing hurry to approve of any old toss that's gussied up as 'progress' - a breed which we're also blessed with an abundance of.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
    Citation required.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    Or order online.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,931

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    wtf
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    If you feel so strongly about "clean air", you can always buy one for her! :lol:
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,793

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    Also a rather expensive option, no?
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,639
    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    I heard a quote from Stephen Fry the other day, something along the lines of these middle-aged men bitching about everything, they just can’t accept that they’re not the alpha males anymore. Their anxiety about their waning power, virility, stamina, strength, the thinning hair, moobs and flabby gut, all manifests itself in this rage against the world, change, young people and their effete woke attitudes.

    I found it quite plausible.

    Of course, being a Remainer beta cuck myself, it’s not a problem I suffer from.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    ...

    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    And then there are the 50 something males desperate to prove their 'non-gammony' status by being in a tearing hurry to approve of any old toss that's gussied up as 'progress' - a breed which we're also blessed with an abundance of.
    I have no idea where you live, but you do realise that that Ulez has been operating successfully and effectively inside the North and South Circular for several years? The area under the existing Ulez boundary is home to millions of people.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
    Citation required.
    They would have sent you the same letter if your car's not "compliant".
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    ...
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/girls-death-contributed-to-by-air-pollution-coroner-rules-in-landmark-case
    I feel deeply sorry for that family that their girl's tragic death is being used as moral blackmail to undermine peoples' access to the freedom to personal transportation.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
    Citation required.
    They would have sent you the same letter if your car's not "compliant".
    But my car is compliant. So they didn’t. Why I bought it I ensured it was compliant.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,931
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    Or order online.
    Is your mum eligible for a blue badge, Sunil? If so, you can claim exemption until 2027.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
    Citation required.
    They would have sent you the same letter if your car's not "compliant".
    But my car is compliant. So they didn’t. Why I bought it I ensured it was compliant.
    If you feel so strongly about "clean air", you can always buy my mum a new car :lol:

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,253
    A
    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    Because childrten and other people are demonstrably ill with realk morbidity and mortality at lower levels than is often found in London. And because even electric cars aren't that great pollution wise. Tyre dust, for one thing, is a mjor source of particulates. Never mind the power station exhausts at present.
    Except that the air filters on the cooling systems on electric cars take more particulates out of the air than the cars produce.

    Why this upsets some people is an entertaining question.
  • .
    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    Worth noting of course that smokers still can smoke outside.

    Yet some people are acting like cars driving outside is the end of the world, or bad for breathing.
    I'm afraid it is bad for breathing. High traffic areas bring PM2.5 and NOx.
    In the case of PM2.5, traffic contributes about one eighth of the pollution. With NOx, it's about one third.

    Both of these are bad. PM2.5 fucks your circulation up and gives you lung cancer. NOx retards lung development in children.
    In a tiny minority of locations, maybe. In the overwhelming majority of the country, absolutely not. Deal with it where its a problem, I have no objections with that.

    The problem is that politicians like Andy Burnham see schemes being introduced in London where they may or may not be justified (I've not looked into it) who then think kerching! and try to introduce it across whole swathes of land like the entirety of Greater Manchester, where its absolutely not.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    Also a rather expensive option, no?
    Possibly not as expensive as kee
    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    Also a rather expensive option, no?
    Possibly not as expensive as keeping the non-Ad Blue diesel. What do you suggest? We allow probably filthy cars to drive around areas of high population forever without penalty? She has had plenty of warning.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    Or order online.
    Is your mum eligible for a blue badge, Sunil? If so, you can claim exemption until 2027.
    Unfortunately, not. But they do mention blue badges in the TfL letter.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,253

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    wtf
    I find piles of dead people very annoying. How many did the big fog in the 50s kill, again?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,793
    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    I never smoked. But I miss smoking in pubs.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    .

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    Worth noting of course that smokers still can smoke outside.

    Yet some people are acting like cars driving outside is the end of the world, or bad for breathing.
    I'm afraid it is bad for breathing. High traffic areas bring PM2.5 and NOx.
    In the case of PM2.5, traffic contributes about one eighth of the pollution. With NOx, it's about one third.

    Both of these are bad. PM2.5 fucks your circulation up and gives you lung cancer. NOx retards lung development in children.
    In a tiny minority of locations, maybe. In the overwhelming majority of the country, absolutely not. Deal with it where its a problem, I have no objections with that.

    The problem is that politicians like Andy Burnham see schemes being introduced in London where they may or may not be justified (I've not looked into it) who then think kerching! and try to introduce it across whole swathes of land like the entirety of Greater Manchester, where its absolutely not.
    Thats because central government has consistently shoved problems onto local government without providing sufficient funding.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821
    Thanks, maybe you can buy one for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    Scott_xP said:

    Carnyx said:

    The last time I rode on the Underground, it wasn't diesel or steam powered.

    It's almost certainly steam powered
    CCGTs generate more from the primary cycle, which is just using natural gas to turn a turbine. It is the secondary cycle that is steam based.

    Of course, nuclear is steam powered. (As is coal.)

    But wind is not.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    ...

    ...

    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    And then there are the 50 something males desperate to prove their 'non-gammony' status by being in a tearing hurry to approve of any old toss that's gussied up as 'progress' - a breed which we're also blessed with an abundance of.
    I have no idea where you live, but you do realise that that Ulez has been operating successfully and effectively inside the North and South Circular for several years? The area under the existing Ulez boundary is home to millions of people.
    I support the right of those living outside the current boundaries to keep the freedom and opportunities afforded by their already heavily taxed vehicles. Not sure why that's a controversial opinion.
  • .

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    What the hell?

    Please don't take my objections to schemes like this being copycatted and put in place in places like the whole of Greater Manchester, where its categorically not needed, as thinking that soot-laden London is perfectly acceptable. 🤦‍♂️

    Yes, London should have clean air. It increasingly has it, had you left it at that then that may have been a point, but you have to go completely off the deep end every time and as someone arguing adjacent to you a similar point, its embarrassing.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    ...

    ...

    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    And then there are the 50 something males desperate to prove their 'non-gammony' status by being in a tearing hurry to approve of any old toss that's gussied up as 'progress' - a breed which we're also blessed with an abundance of.
    I have no idea where you live, but you do realise that that Ulez has been operating successfully and effectively inside the North and South Circular for several years? The area under the existing Ulez boundary is home to millions of people.
    I support the right of those living outside the current boundaries to keep the freedom and opportunities afforded by their already heavily taxed vehicles. Not sure why that's a controversial opinion.
    Oh, and Mum's car tax went up from £180 last year to £200 this year!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    ...

    dixiedean said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    If it weren't for male 50 something's whining about all and sundry, then this place would be quite lonely.
    And then there are the 50 something males desperate to prove their 'non-gammony' status by being in a tearing hurry to approve of any old toss that's gussied up as 'progress' - a breed which we're also blessed with an abundance of.
    I have no idea where you live, but you do realise that that Ulez has been operating successfully and effectively inside the North and South Circular for several years? The area under the existing Ulez boundary is home to millions of people.
    Since October 2021.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    ...

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The pollution argument is complete bullshit anyway. Particulates are at dangerous levels on the London Underground and its stations, not on the streets. The Ulez maniacs don't give a flying fuck about anyone's lungs.
    Interestingly I got an email the other day asking if I wanted to take part in a study looking at pollution and effects on lungs on the tube.

    As noted above the ULEZ requirements will soon become normal for vehicles and will then - hopefully - be ratcheted up over time. There’s a reasonable argument over speed of implementation, first 2 days free etc but exhaust pollution being a major cause of child asthma and Ill health is uncontroversial.
    I have a kid with asthma and have absolutely zero sympathy for those bleating about the ULEZ. At last someone is doing something about those who carelessly harm others. Well done Sadiq Khan.
    Can you justify the £12.50 a DAY? Whenever my 70 year-old mum has to drive to Sainsbury's she'll have to pay £12.50!
    She could, instead, change her car.
    Or order online.
    Is your mum eligible for a blue badge, Sunil? If so, you can claim exemption until 2027.
    Unfortunately, not. But they do mention blue badges in the TfL letter.
    Surely fortunately not?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    ...

    .

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    What the hell?

    Please don't take my objections to schemes like this being copycatted and put in place in places like the whole of Greater Manchester, where its categorically not needed, as thinking that soot-laden London is perfectly acceptable. 🤦‍♂️

    Yes, London should have clean air. It increasingly has it, had you left it at that then that may have been a point, but you have to go completely off the deep end every time and as someone arguing adjacent to you a similar point, its embarrassing.
    Thanks, the embarrassment is mutual, but I've always considered you beyond the reach of well meaning advice.

    My point about London is that the concept of a 'crisis' has become severely debased currency. Not that we should go back to the pea soup days.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
    Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. If you feel so strongly about "clean air"?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
    Farooq said:

    .

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    Worth noting of course that smokers still can smoke outside.

    Yet some people are acting like cars driving outside is the end of the world, or bad for breathing.
    I'm afraid it is bad for breathing. High traffic areas bring PM2.5 and NOx.
    In the case of PM2.5, traffic contributes about one eighth of the pollution. With NOx, it's about one third.

    Both of these are bad. PM2.5 fucks your circulation up and gives you lung cancer. NOx retards lung development in children.
    In a tiny minority of locations, maybe. In the overwhelming majority of the country, absolutely not. Deal with it where its a problem, I have no objections with that.

    The problem is that politicians like Andy Burnham see schemes being introduced in London where they may or may not be justified (I've not looked into it) who then think kerching! and try to introduce it across whole swathes of land like the entirety of Greater Manchester, where its absolutely not.
    You can see geographical levels for various pollutants here:
    https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/
    To my untrained eye, they do seem pretty high in Manchester to be fair.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,075

    American comedian Roseanne Barr has been criticised for a podcast interview in which she said that six million Jews 'should be killed.'

    In a conversation with provocative comedian Theo Von, Barr, 70, said the Holocaust never happened, "but should have" as "Jews cause all the problems in the world."


    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/disgraced-american-comedian-roseanne-barr-says-6-million-jews-should-die-7AKu8J3kY2CJkAShswdmGj

    I mean I’m not generally in favour of cancelling people for what they say, but in what world could that possibly be remotely acceptable?
    If you are going to have free speech for people, you will have people who speak freely. Otherwise, as GBS said, we are just haggling over the price. If it helps, we now have proof she's an absolutely massive anti-Semite.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
    Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. If you feel so strongly about "clean air"?
    Are you seriously suggesting I should buy your mother (and, by logical extension, every other Londoner with a noncompliant vehicle) a car?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?
  • Farooq said:

    .

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    Worth noting of course that smokers still can smoke outside.

    Yet some people are acting like cars driving outside is the end of the world, or bad for breathing.
    I'm afraid it is bad for breathing. High traffic areas bring PM2.5 and NOx.
    In the case of PM2.5, traffic contributes about one eighth of the pollution. With NOx, it's about one third.

    Both of these are bad. PM2.5 fucks your circulation up and gives you lung cancer. NOx retards lung development in children.
    In a tiny minority of locations, maybe. In the overwhelming majority of the country, absolutely not. Deal with it where its a problem, I have no objections with that.

    The problem is that politicians like Andy Burnham see schemes being introduced in London where they may or may not be justified (I've not looked into it) who then think kerching! and try to introduce it across whole swathes of land like the entirety of Greater Manchester, where its absolutely not.
    You can see geographical levels for various pollutants here:
    https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/
    Yes, and if you look at it then the overwhelming majority of Greater Manchester has not got problems, yet the entire area was supposed to be covered by the zone "to make it easy" rather than covering the very few roads that actually have issues.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    viewcode said:

    American comedian Roseanne Barr has been criticised for a podcast interview in which she said that six million Jews 'should be killed.'

    In a conversation with provocative comedian Theo Von, Barr, 70, said the Holocaust never happened, "but should have" as "Jews cause all the problems in the world."


    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/disgraced-american-comedian-roseanne-barr-says-6-million-jews-should-die-7AKu8J3kY2CJkAShswdmGj

    I mean I’m not generally in favour of cancelling people for what they say, but in what world could that possibly be remotely acceptable?
    If you are going to have free speech for people, you will have people who speak freely. Otherwise, as GBS said, we are just haggling over the price. If it helps, we now have proof she's an absolutely massive anti-Semite.
    There is no reason to bring her weight into this!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
    Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. If you feel so strongly about "clean air"?
    Are you seriously suggesting I should buy your mother (and, by logical extension, every other Londoner with a noncompliant vehicle) a car?
    Just my mum, because after all, I'm the one posting on PB (not these "every other Londoners" of yours)! Put your money were your mouth is, Anabobazina!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,663

    ...

    .

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    What the hell?

    Please don't take my objections to schemes like this being copycatted and put in place in places like the whole of Greater Manchester, where its categorically not needed, as thinking that soot-laden London is perfectly acceptable. 🤦‍♂️

    Yes, London should have clean air. It increasingly has it, had you left it at that then that may have been a point, but you have to go completely off the deep end every time and as someone arguing adjacent to you a similar point, its embarrassing.
    Thanks, the embarrassment is mutual, but I've always considered you beyond the reach of well meaning advice.

    My point about London is that the concept of a 'crisis' has become severely debased currency. Not that we should go back to the pea soup days.
    LuckyGuy1923 would have been arguing against the 1956 Clean Air Act.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    ...

    viewcode said:

    American comedian Roseanne Barr has been criticised for a podcast interview in which she said that six million Jews 'should be killed.'

    In a conversation with provocative comedian Theo Von, Barr, 70, said the Holocaust never happened, "but should have" as "Jews cause all the problems in the world."


    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/disgraced-american-comedian-roseanne-barr-says-6-million-jews-should-die-7AKu8J3kY2CJkAShswdmGj

    I mean I’m not generally in favour of cancelling people for what they say, but in what world could that possibly be remotely acceptable?
    If you are going to have free speech for people, you will have people who speak freely. Otherwise, as GBS said, we are just haggling over the price. If it helps, we now have proof she's an absolutely massive anti-Semite.
    There is no reason to bring her weight into this!
    It's all muscle anyway.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,779

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
    Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. If you feel so strongly about "clean air"?
    Are you seriously suggesting I should buy your mother (and, by logical extension, every other Londoner with a noncompliant vehicle) a car?
    Just my mum, because after all, I'm the one posting on PB (not these "every other Londoners" of yours)! Put your money were your mouth is, Anabobazina!
    You should be buying your mum a new motor anyway.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    There are clearly negative health outcomes from breathing in diesel particulates, particulates on the tube, ozone/NO2/CO from car engines etc.

    I don't think anyone denies that. It's going to be a part of the reason why the incidence of lung diseases in children are 2-3x higher in urban that in rural areas.

    Now, we can argue about cost-benefit, if you like, but I don't think many people would suggest it's *good* to breathe in pollution.
  • .

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
    Farooq said:

    .

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    Worth noting of course that smokers still can smoke outside.

    Yet some people are acting like cars driving outside is the end of the world, or bad for breathing.
    I'm afraid it is bad for breathing. High traffic areas bring PM2.5 and NOx.
    In the case of PM2.5, traffic contributes about one eighth of the pollution. With NOx, it's about one third.

    Both of these are bad. PM2.5 fucks your circulation up and gives you lung cancer. NOx retards lung development in children.
    In a tiny minority of locations, maybe. In the overwhelming majority of the country, absolutely not. Deal with it where its a problem, I have no objections with that.

    The problem is that politicians like Andy Burnham see schemes being introduced in London where they may or may not be justified (I've not looked into it) who then think kerching! and try to introduce it across whole swathes of land like the entirety of Greater Manchester, where its absolutely not.
    You can see geographical levels for various pollutants here:
    https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/
    To my untrained eye, they do seem pretty high in Manchester to be fair.
    There are a few roads in Manchester itself that have issues. From memory there are 4 roads (total) above legal limits.

    The entire area of Greater Manchester was supposed to be covered by the plan, rather than draw out the areas where there's actually an issue.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821
    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    Unfortunatement, our Volvo is 2010! :grimace:
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Miklosvar said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    ohnotnow said:

    Farooq said:

    Miklosvar said:

    American comedian Roseanne Barr has been criticised for a podcast interview in which she said that six million Jews 'should be killed.'

    In a conversation with provocative comedian Theo Von, Barr, 70, said the Holocaust never happened, "but should have" as "Jews cause all the problems in the world."


    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/disgraced-american-comedian-roseanne-barr-says-6-million-jews-should-die-7AKu8J3kY2CJkAShswdmGj

    I mean I’m not generally in favour of cancelling people for what they say, but in what world could that possibly be remotely acceptable?
    America.

    Remember Trump fans chant 'Jews will not replace us.'
    T.S. Eliot, in 1946, said the holocaust was all very well but if the jews kept breeding we were only a couple of generations away from having exactly the same problems as it was meant to solve. I wish I could say that this exposes the essential worthlessness of The Waste Land and 4 Quartets, but it doesn't. But I have a real ethical dilemma, is it still right to read him?
    Here's a little tip for you to help answer your question. You aren't reading him, you're reading his work.

    Reading someone's work doesn't endorse what they are saying in that work, let alone the wider life of the author. Knowing what you know might affect your enjoyment, but that's not a "should" question.

    He, of course, can no longer benefit from sales of his work so your conscience ought to be free from any troubling questions along those lines too.
    Does that mean it's ok to rewatch "Jim'll Fix It" now? Because I have some fond childhood memories which are terribly conflicted.
    I get the point, but there is a bit of a balancing act between the badness of the behaviour and the merit of the work (with perhaps an element of time passing moderating the former). Kanye straddles it; Michael Jackson *maybe* does too; phenomenal musician, but… and then you’ve got the likes of Gary Glitter or Lostprophets, who nobody misses.

    There are some tricky ones - Lewis Carroll is one I struggle with. I have zero doubt he was a paedophile, even if he was chaste. But Alice stands in the pantheon of literature.
    "Chaste paedophile" is surely morally superior to never committed paedophilia because never felt the urge? We mustn't congratulate ourselves on the pure good luck of our sexual urges happening to be in line with contemporary norms

    Unrelatedly, something someone pointed out to me 40 years ago - 3 great literary paedophiles (Swift, Marvell, Carroll) all produced great work (gulliver, Appleton House, Alice) about people drastically changing size, relative or absolute.
    Interesting point on size-changing, though I wasn’t aware of Swift being a paedophile.

    While Carroll was (probably) chaste, it’s not as if he didn’t act on his urges - albeit in way that was apparently acceptable for a donnish Victorian clergyman (i.e. taking naked pictures of young girls for ‘art’).
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,357

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The penalty is levied if:

    "Your vehicle does not meet the ULEZ emissions standards and you haven't paid the correct charge by midnight on the third charging day after travelling in the zone"

    So people who don't know about the charge, and suddenly find out when they see the sign on the M4 leading into the city, have plenty of time to pay the charge before being hit by a penalty. The toll on the M50 around Dublin works in a similar way (though you have less time to pay the toll online in that case).

    I'm more concerned by the implied large number of surveillance cameras*, and data recorded on vehicle movements in order to prove that a charge is payable, than I am by the principle of a charge, or a penalty if the charge is not paid.

    I suppose there's a slight aspect of people with these older cars being asked to pay twice. Vehicle Excise Duty is already graduated on the basis that more polluting cars pay more.

    * Not just on the boundary of the city to detect vehicles entering the zone, but they must be pretty densely spread around the zone in order to detect vehicles owned by residents moving from one point within the zone to another. I know that this is something of a lost battle, given the number of police ANPR cameras there already are, but that doesn't mean I like another instance of such data collection expanding even further, and presumably easier for a wider number of people to access than the police data.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.

    Generally baffled by the reaction on here to the Ulez-X. It’s been widely trailed and well ahead of time. And it’s working well.

    Thanks, maybe you can buy one of your "cheapo" cars for my mum, then! If you feel so strongly about "clean air".

    If not, then you can always STFU!
    Seems a ludicrously childish response.
    Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. If you feel so strongly about "clean air"?
    Are you seriously suggesting I should buy your mother (and, by logical extension, every other Londoner with a noncompliant vehicle) a car?
    Just my mum, because after all, I'm the one posting on PB (not these "every other Londoners" of yours)! Put your money were your mouth is, Anabobazina!
    You should be buying your mum a new motor anyway.
    Hang on, 70 year olds are pretty much the richest demographic and generally in reasonable health. Yet the assumption on here seems to be they all are close to blue badges and need charity from their overtaxed progeny.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    edited June 2023

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
    Presumably a fairly large proportion of those vehicles (not just cars I assume) are from outside London, where air pollution is much less of a problem? Ergo they are importing particulates into the capital for us to suck up then returning to their homes in cleaner air?

    To coin a cliche, I would find it hard to craft a sufficiently tiny violin.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,663

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    Unfortunatement, our Volvo is 2010! :grimace:
    I thought you were a well-paid scientist? Can't you buy your poor old mum a new clean car?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
    Presumably a fairly large proportion of those vehicles (not just cars I assume) are from outside London, where air pollution is much less of a problem? Ergo they are importing particulates into the capital for us to suck up then returning to their homes in cleaner air?

    To coin a cliche, I would find it hard to craft a sufficiently tiny violin.
    I am broadly in favour. Think with a few tweaks and you could have had 80% support rather than 50-60% support which is important in divided times, and it would have been a tad fairer and less regressive.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,357

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
    Citation required.
    They would have sent you the same letter if your car's not "compliant".
    But my car is compliant. So they didn’t. Why I bought it I ensured it was compliant.
    If you feel so strongly about "clean air", you can always buy my mum a new car :lol:

    There is a scrappage scheme, so to a certain extent tax-paying London residents are contributing to helping to buy your mum a new car, were she to avail of the scrappage scheme to do so.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    .

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    Worth noting of course that smokers still can smoke outside.

    Yet some people are acting like cars driving outside is the end of the world, or bad for breathing.
    I'm afraid it is bad for breathing. High traffic areas bring PM2.5 and NOx.
    In the case of PM2.5, traffic contributes about one eighth of the pollution. With NOx, it's about one third.

    Both of these are bad. PM2.5 fucks your circulation up and gives you lung cancer. NOx retards lung development in children.
    In a tiny minority of locations, maybe. In the overwhelming majority of the country, absolutely not. Deal with it where its a problem, I have no objections with that.

    The problem is that politicians like Andy Burnham see schemes being introduced in London where they may or may not be justified (I've not looked into it) who then think kerching! and try to introduce it across whole swathes of land like the entirety of Greater Manchester, where its absolutely not.
    You can see geographical levels for various pollutants here:
    https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/
    Yes, and if you look at it then the overwhelming majority of Greater Manchester has not got problems, yet the entire area was supposed to be covered by the zone "to make it easy" rather than covering the very few roads that actually have issues.
    I don't endorse that conclusion. The map is only a starter. For instance, the NO2 levels are mostly in the top two categories across Greater Manchester. What's the safe level? I don't know. The units on the legend don't match what I understand in terms of ppm, so I can't say whether you seeing orange as being fine is something I'd agree with. Certainly by inspection is looks like London and Birmingham are worse and then Manchester and Glasgow look like they're about the same in equal third worst. How bad that is, I am not sure.
    Only on pb can people use that page and be instant experts within 5 minutes. Love it, nowhere else would have the mix of coming up with such detail and the arrogance to interpret it definitely so quickly, before moving onto the next problem.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
    Presumably a fairly large proportion of those vehicles (not just cars I assume) are from outside London, where air pollution is much less of a problem? Ergo they are importing particulates into the capital for us to suck up then returning to their homes in cleaner air?

    To coin a cliche, I would find it hard to craft a sufficiently tiny violin.
    I am broadly in favour. Think with a few tweaks and you could have had 80% support rather than 50-60% support which is important in divided times, and it would have been a tad fairer and less regressive.
    I mean, just get it done. The ‘smash it through’ approach worked well for Ulez1 -I haven’t heard anyone even mention that for a year or more.

    People will quickly adapt to UlezX, get used to it, and air quality will improve. No point faffing around. Some people are always going to moan.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,894
    On Channel 4 now: Boris, the Lord & the Russian Spy: Dispatches.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Carnyx said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    "survive OK".

    4000 (official), more like 10-15K, dead, and hundreds of thousands injured in one episode of fog.
    Even 10 years ago, there was no emissions crisis, and without looking at the figures, I strongly suspect air pollution levels in the capital are lower than they were a decade ago and falling.
    It is purely a revenue-earning exercise. They even fess up to it in the letter TfL sent us last week!
    Citation required.
    They would have sent you the same letter if your car's not "compliant".
    But my car is compliant. So they didn’t. Why I bought it I ensured it was compliant.
    If you feel so strongly about "clean air", you can always buy my mum a new car :lol:

    There is a scrappage scheme, so to a certain extent tax-paying London residents are contributing to helping to buy your mum a new car, were she to avail of the scrappage scheme to do so.
    I don’t know if she qualifies or not, and hadn’t mentioned it because he was being so mean-spirited about the other ideas I
    suggested!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,971
    edited June 2023
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    .

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.

    ULEZ stuff is reminding me very much of the arguments about smoking in pubs and public places, and how awful it was that the nasty Scottish Government were bringing in bans. It was much the same sort of right-winger male 50-somethings who whined about it, and yet today the consensus is settled.

    https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/smoking-in-scotland-15-years-after-ban-3179119

    Worth noting of course that smokers still can smoke outside.

    Yet some people are acting like cars driving outside is the end of the world, or bad for breathing.
    I'm afraid it is bad for breathing. High traffic areas bring PM2.5 and NOx.
    In the case of PM2.5, traffic contributes about one eighth of the pollution. With NOx, it's about one third.

    Both of these are bad. PM2.5 fucks your circulation up and gives you lung cancer. NOx retards lung development in children.
    In a tiny minority of locations, maybe. In the overwhelming majority of the country, absolutely not. Deal with it where its a problem, I have no objections with that.

    The problem is that politicians like Andy Burnham see schemes being introduced in London where they may or may not be justified (I've not looked into it) who then think kerching! and try to introduce it across whole swathes of land like the entirety of Greater Manchester, where its absolutely not.
    You can see geographical levels for various pollutants here:
    https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/
    Yes, and if you look at it then the overwhelming majority of Greater Manchester has not got problems, yet the entire area was supposed to be covered by the zone "to make it easy" rather than covering the very few roads that actually have issues.
    I don't endorse that conclusion. The map is only a starter. For instance, the NO2 levels are mostly in the top two categories across Greater Manchester. What's the safe level? I don't know. The units on the legend don't match what I understand in terms of ppm, so I can't say whether you seeing orange as being fine is something I'd agree with. Certainly by inspection is looks like London and Birmingham are worse and then Manchester and Glasgow look like they're about the same in equal third worst. How bad that is, I am not sure.
    Breaches only existed in Manchester, Salford and Bury - but the proposed plan, now suspended, was to cover the whole of GM. Its absurd that outskirts of towns like Wigan were to be treated the same as the inside of cities like Manchester and Salford.

    Interestingly the original charged-for plan wasn't expected to even resolve the problems where it existed in Manchester. So by having a blanket wide plan, it was going to hit towns where it wasn't needed, and miss fixing the problems where they exist.

    Now the plan has been abandoned and new plans are being drawn up which don't involve charges, and yet are expected to lower NO2 where needed by more than the old charge plan was doing. https://cleanairgm.com/clean-air-plan/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
    Presumably a fairly large proportion of those vehicles (not just cars I assume) are from outside London, where air pollution is much less of a problem? Ergo they are importing particulates into the capital for us to suck up then returning to their homes in cleaner air?

    To coin a cliche, I would find it hard to craft a sufficiently tiny violin.
    Fox Jr had asthma as a child. It disappeared immediately after we moved out of the city. Leicester is particularly bad for car fumes as away from the sea and in a shallow bowl.

    Air pollution is a killer, and not just in children:

    https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/living-near-a-busy-road-can-stunt-childrens-lung-growth



  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423
    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    There are clearly negative health outcomes from breathing in diesel particulates, particulates on the tube, ozone/NO2/CO from car engines etc.

    I don't think anyone denies that. It's going to be a part of the reason why the incidence of lung diseases in children are 2-3x higher in urban that in rural areas.

    Now, we can argue about cost-benefit, if you like, but I don't think many people would suggest it's *good* to breathe in pollution.
    I am not saying that it is good to inhale polluted air frequently. I am making the argument that this is an unjust infringement of personal liberty, and that, along with most unjust infringements of liberty these days, we're morally blackmailed with a 'crisis' whereby opponents of the policy are 'happy with children dying'. Yet when we look at the actual impact of (for example) covid lockdowns and school closures, they were far more disastrous for children than non-implementation would have been.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    edited June 2023

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    There was some polling in the affected areas a few weeks ago.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/ulez-poll-more-in-common-majority-londoners-support-political-leaning-tory-voters-sadiq-khan-b1082273.html

    Bizarrely more popular in London than the rest of the country.
    That doesn’t strike me as bizarre at all, given that it’s those who live in London who will benefit most from the cleaner air. And let’s not beat about the bush - that means live longer and be less prone to chronic disease.
    What I mean is why should the rest of the country care? Are they all planning on driving their beaten up old jalopies here and zooming around the north circular?
    Yes a lot of people who live outside London might drive into the zone a couple of times a year. I'd imagine a high proportion of those are going to be hit with unexpected £80/160 fines.

    Again it would have been better to say something like first five journeys per year are free.
    Why? Every journey in a dirty car is filling some kid's lungs with filth. There are massive signs when you enter the zone so it's not going to be a surprise to anyone who drives with their eyes open. Nobody has a God-given right to pollute other people's lungs. If they don't want to pay the charge, just stay the fuck away.
    Lots of reasons.

    Paying £80-160 is too big a fine for lack of knowledge/forgotfulness/getting lost, especially without the deterrent effect needed for regular users.
    Someone visiting London a couple of times a year really isn't a big contributor to London pollution.
    London is a great and welcoming city, we don't need to put off occassional visitors.
    It is unreasonable to expect someone visiting a couple of times a year to change car unlike someone using the roads every day.
    It would be a progressive part of a regressive scheme financially.
    The penalty is levied if:

    "Your vehicle does not meet the ULEZ emissions standards and you haven't paid the correct charge by midnight on the third charging day after travelling in the zone"

    So people who don't know about the charge, and suddenly find out when they see the sign on the M4 leading into the city, have plenty of time to pay the charge before being hit by a penalty. The toll on the M50 around Dublin works in a similar way (though you have less time to pay the toll online in that case).

    I'm more concerned by the implied large number of surveillance cameras*, and data recorded on vehicle movements in order to prove that a charge is payable, than I am by the principle of a charge, or a penalty if the charge is not paid.

    I suppose there's a slight aspect of people with these older cars being asked to pay twice. Vehicle Excise Duty is already graduated on the basis that more polluting cars pay more.

    * Not just on the boundary of the city to detect vehicles entering the zone, but they must be pretty densely spread around the zone in order to detect vehicles owned by residents moving from one point within the zone to another. I know that this is something of a lost battle, given the number of police ANPR cameras there already are, but that doesn't mean I like another instance of such data collection expanding even further, and presumably easier for a wider number of people to access than the police data.
    I guess, like speeding, on any given short local trip you have a reasonable chance of getting away with it, if you really want to do it, outside the main arterial routes. Trouble is, I guess you then risk a whopping fine, so most people will pay the Ulez charge rather than risk being caught out?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    There are clearly negative health outcomes from breathing in diesel particulates, particulates on the tube, ozone/NO2/CO from car engines etc.

    I don't think anyone denies that. It's going to be a part of the reason why the incidence of lung diseases in children are 2-3x higher in urban that in rural areas.

    Now, we can argue about cost-benefit, if you like, but I don't think many people would suggest it's *good* to breathe in pollution.
    I am not saying that it is good to inhale polluted air frequently. I am making the argument that this is an unjust infringement of personal liberty, and that, along with most unjust infringements of liberty these days, we're morally blackmailed with a 'crisis' whereby opponents of the policy are 'happy with children dying'. Yet when we look at the actual impact of (for example) covid lockdowns and school closures, they were far more disastrous for children than non-implementation would have been.
    It isn't an infringement of liberty, just a matter of charging the polluter for the externalised costs of their lifestyle. People are still free to drive, if they pay the cost.
  • rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    There are clearly negative health outcomes from breathing in diesel particulates, particulates on the tube, ozone/NO2/CO from car engines etc.

    I don't think anyone denies that. It's going to be a part of the reason why the incidence of lung diseases in children are 2-3x higher in urban that in rural areas.

    Now, we can argue about cost-benefit, if you like, but I don't think many people would suggest it's *good* to breathe in pollution.
    I am not saying that it is good to inhale polluted air frequently. I am making the argument that this is an unjust infringement of personal liberty, and that, along with most unjust infringements of liberty these days, we're morally blackmailed with a 'crisis' whereby opponents of the policy are 'happy with children dying'. Yet when we look at the actual impact of (for example) covid lockdowns and school closures, they were far more disastrous for children than non-implementation would have been.
    You have to take everything to extremes. What infringement on civil liberty?

    My car is 13 years old and its ULEZ-compliant, I would not have to pay ULEZ if I drove into London. And if I did, I might debate the politics of that, but its not an infringement of civil liberties to pay a tax or charge.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,246
    Foxy said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
    Presumably a fairly large proportion of those vehicles (not just cars I assume) are from outside London, where air pollution is much less of a problem? Ergo they are importing particulates into the capital for us to suck up then returning to their homes in cleaner air?

    To coin a cliche, I would find it hard to craft a sufficiently tiny violin.
    Fox Jr had asthma as a child. It disappeared immediately after we moved out of the city. Leicester is particularly bad for car fumes as away from the sea and in a shallow bowl.

    Air pollution is a killer, and not just in children:

    https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/living-near-a-busy-road-can-stunt-childrens-lung-growth



    Should I ever get the urge to drive through central London I'll bring my MGB Roadster. Being a 'classic' it's immune to Congestion and ULEZ charges, even though it leaves a palpable trail of particulates in its wake. The main problem, however, is that it needs to keep moving to prevent the engine overheating. It seems to me that successive London administrations have relegated the rapid movement of traffic to a very low priority. So much so that it's generally quicker to walk than to take a cab.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,423

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    There are clearly negative health outcomes from breathing in diesel particulates, particulates on the tube, ozone/NO2/CO from car engines etc.

    I don't think anyone denies that. It's going to be a part of the reason why the incidence of lung diseases in children are 2-3x higher in urban that in rural areas.

    Now, we can argue about cost-benefit, if you like, but I don't think many people would suggest it's *good* to breathe in pollution.
    I am not saying that it is good to inhale polluted air frequently. I am making the argument that this is an unjust infringement of personal liberty, and that, along with most unjust infringements of liberty these days, we're morally blackmailed with a 'crisis' whereby opponents of the policy are 'happy with children dying'. Yet when we look at the actual impact of (for example) covid lockdowns and school closures, they were far more disastrous for children than non-implementation would have been.
    You have to take everything to extremes. What infringement on civil liberty?

    My car is 13 years old and its ULEZ-compliant, I would not have to pay ULEZ if I drove into London. And if I did, I might debate the politics of that, but its not an infringement of civil liberties to pay a tax or charge.
    I haven't said anything about 'civil liberties' you silly arse.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
    Is this your source?

    https://media.rac.co.uk/pressreleases/drivers-of-nearly-700000-cars-in-greater-london-could-be-liable-to-pay-the-ulez-charge-when-the-zone-is-expanded-this-summer-3241731#:~:text=Nearly 700,000 car drivers in,made by the RAC reveals.

    In numbers for us non-Londoners:

    - 691k cars registered to London addresses that do not meet ULEZ
    - 160k non ULEZ compliant vans and commercials registered in London
    - This represents 9.5% of vehicles registered in London, although the figure is estimated around 15% for outer London
    - The general cut off is 2006 for petrol cars, 2015 for diesels (a couple of the vehicles I checked squeaked in)
    - Estimate 160k non ULEZ cars currently drive in the extended zone each day.
    - A 2k scrappage scheme operates.

    Sunil and his Mum are being forced to think about what they do here, but the range of possible solutions does look quite broad.


  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Foxy said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Just checked the ULEZ compliance of my household's current and former vehicles.

    Our petrol cars going back to 2007 and our 2015 diesel are all ULEZ compliant. All the older cars back to the 1990s, sadly, don't show up, which I guess means they've been scrapped.

    How many non compliant cars are there actually?

    About 150k-200k such cars travel into the zone per day currently. Over a year it is about 700k cars that would have to pay at least once.
    Presumably a fairly large proportion of those vehicles (not just cars I assume) are from outside London, where air pollution is much less of a problem? Ergo they are importing particulates into the capital for us to suck up then returning to their homes in cleaner air?

    To coin a cliche, I would find it hard to craft a sufficiently tiny violin.
    Fox Jr had asthma as a child. It disappeared immediately after we moved out of the city. Leicester is particularly bad for car fumes as away from the sea and in a shallow bowl.

    Air pollution is a killer, and not just in children:

    https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/living-near-a-busy-road-can-stunt-childrens-lung-growth



    I have liked your post as it’s a good point and example you make rather liking its content! Sorry to hear about your son, and yes, urban air pollution is a silent killer. I was converted to the cause by a guy who asked if I’d as willingly swim in a visibly polluted pool as I would walk in polluted air.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,589
    Has anyone read this in the Times:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/at-the-pub-in-enfield-the-most-mortgaged-place-in-britain-7vgns0dht

    I'm not sure if its a parody or not - it features a 'sun kissed' mortgage advisor called Tarquin plus this whiner:

    Over in Wimbledon, a retired academic, Gareth Tudor-Williams, 68, was thankful for two decades on an interest-only mortgage; it enabled him to buy a five-bedroom house, which now holds three generations of his family, for £850,000 in 2003. He was paying £770 a month. Now, his payments are £2,700 — still on an interest-only basis — and set to rise further. “It’s utterly unsustainable for us. We’re eroding savings we hadn’t expected to use so early into retirement. We’re considering whether to sell up and count our losses.”
  • .

    rcs1000 said:

    ...

    I wouldn't have thought the Cons have given up on Grimsby or Stockton South yet. However, the likely battleground at the GE will be far far beyond most of these forty constituencies. Little in politics is certain but that is about as close to it as you can get!

    Tory over performing areas probably midlands and poorer outer London/M25 fringe playing on ULEZ. Shafted elsewhere though and hard to see much recovery within 18 months.
    The Ulez-X will have been in force over a year by the likely time of the GE. In all likelihood, people will have come to terms with it by then.

    I’m far from sure that the Ulez play is the big vote winning the Tories think it is.
    Yes, I’d like to see some polling on ULEZ.

    Personally, I live in Zone 3 and am a big supporter of it. It’s the one thing Khan has done that I can get behind enthusiastically. That’s because it’s proven to reduce pollution and I’m very much in favour of cleaner air. But maybe I’m just unusual in that, and outer Londoners want to continue to live in an asthma inducing smog so long as it means they can keep their diesel Volvo Estate?
    Close! We're in Zone 4, and we've got a diesel Volvo saloon :cold_sweat: :
    So, does that mean you’re anti?
    Yes, we got a letter from TfL via the DVLA explaining what's happening in August - it openly admits ULEZ is a revenue-earning exercise "to fund public transport". I mean £12.50 a DAY?
    24 hours a day seven days a week as well. Should have started at £5 a day for outer London and only 7-7 when congestion is a problem.
    Why? It’s been operating fine inside the North Circular for years. London needs cleaner air. You don’t get something for nothing.
    Why does London *need* cleaner air than is growingly already the case? It seemed to survive OK when it had air thick with soot. Petrol and diesel cars are on the way out, and cars at any rate are pensioned off and their replacements ever cleaner and more efficient. This is just yet another confected crisis to get people to sacrifice freedoms that they wouldn't otherwise be prepared to.
    There are clearly negative health outcomes from breathing in diesel particulates, particulates on the tube, ozone/NO2/CO from car engines etc.

    I don't think anyone denies that. It's going to be a part of the reason why the incidence of lung diseases in children are 2-3x higher in urban that in rural areas.

    Now, we can argue about cost-benefit, if you like, but I don't think many people would suggest it's *good* to breathe in pollution.
    I am not saying that it is good to inhale polluted air frequently. I am making the argument that this is an unjust infringement of personal liberty, and that, along with most unjust infringements of liberty these days, we're morally blackmailed with a 'crisis' whereby opponents of the policy are 'happy with children dying'. Yet when we look at the actual impact of (for example) covid lockdowns and school closures, they were far more disastrous for children than non-implementation would have been.
    You have to take everything to extremes. What infringement on civil liberty?

    My car is 13 years old and its ULEZ-compliant, I would not have to pay ULEZ if I drove into London. And if I did, I might debate the politics of that, but its not an infringement of civil liberties to pay a tax or charge.
    I haven't said anything about 'civil liberties' you silly arse.
    "this is an unjust infringement of personal liberty"

    Sorry, you said personal rather than civil liberty. What a silly arse I am, I'll get the type of liberty we're discussing right next time. 🤦‍♂️
This discussion has been closed.