Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
You have seen the climate change news yesterday? And you have grandchildren. Who are, I hope, lucky not to live in areas affected by traffic fumes.
I would venture to suggest that a few large inner cities like London should have strict controls but a balance has to be struck.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
Some people look at Khan and think he's being radical, and I look at Khan and say this isn't nearly enough. A society built around the idea of each family having 1, let alone 2, cars is not compatible with a sustainable planet. We cannot make that many "green" cars, but more than that, that many cars are just bad. The main issue I think most people have about punitive measures against car driving is that so much of the country has really shit public transport infrastructure so, without that, all they see is a reduction in quality of life. If we invested in public transport more first, get the low hanging fruit of those who WANT to reduce their dependency on cars but currently feel they have no other options, then start being a bit more restrictive on cars and keep doing it that way - investment in services prior to restriction - I think more people would be on board. It's the same reason that some people see this 15 minute city stuff and start to go bonkers - they don't believe the state can do anything good for them so they only see the negatives of such a scheme and not the potential upsides.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
That's a council estate ward which has always been a Labour stronghold.
On a very local level it shows how easily support can be lost once a party does something unpopular.
A Starmer government would have to make unpopular decisions and it might chose to make other unpopular decisions.
I stood as a Conservative in Kings Hedges once upon a time. Although that was a while ago, I can entirely see why the local LDs would end up splitting the anti-Tory vote and letting the Conservative win. Deeply frustrating for those of us who (now) want to see the Tories out on their backsides.
I mean, his policies have always been popular and I think the people who like to claim it was always a cult around him as an individual ignore the fact that most of his supporters care more about the policies than the man himself. I also wonder the degree to which if you're not being told on a daily basis that this man is a Marxist Communist IRA supporter who is going to nationalise Greg's that the hate goggles slip away and you see what's really there, a generally mild mannered social democrat. It also helps that so many of his policy positions (home broadband infrastructure, pay rises for workers, nationalisation of utility services) seem to be so on point for the moment at hand.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
You have seen the climate change news yesterday? And you have grandchildren. Who are, I hope, lucky not to live in areas affected by traffic fumes.
I would venture to suggest that a few large inner cities like London should have strict controls but a balance has to be struck.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
On the last point, you'd be surprised. It is not true that you have to live in a large city. TRaffic brings pollution with it. Air quality is a much wider issue geographically. It's entirely possible that RP has, for instance, PM2.5 particulate levels in the same bracket* as most of Aberdeen and London where he lives in his small burgh.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
The expansion of ULEZ in London has been turned into what you describe as a "war against cars" by Conservative media shills like Nick Ferrari who considers it to be an erosion of personal freedom and an expansion of the nanny state. He goes on about it every day.
The percentage of vehicles that don't comply is now minimal. I keyed in my son's 2003 Mini Cooper S and an old 53 plate Fiesta we once owned and both were compliant. Fairly recent diesels are a different story but it wouldn't be too much trouble to exchange your ten year old diesel for an identical petrol equivalent with the scrappage allowance.
It seems it had an effect in Cambridge and even labour's own candidate in Uxbridge contradicts Khan
It is also a fact that very many ordinary workers depend on their cars and despite the idea there is a limited scrapage scheme available they simply do not have the means to change their car to avoid a £12.50 a day charge
Indeed it is not only conservative councils who are objecting, we are now seeing Labour ones as well
ULEZ is typical LAB! It harms the poor and those who want to work.
Although the current government is useless, a close look at LAB does not provide an appealing alter
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
The expansion of ULEZ in London has been turned into what you describe as a "war against cars" by Conservative media shills like Nick Ferrari who considers it to be an erosion of personal freedom and an expansion of the nanny state. He goes on about it every day.
The percentage of vehicles that don't comply is now minimal. I keyed in my son's 2003 Mini Cooper S and an old 53 plate Fiesta we once owned and both were compliant. Fairly recent diesels are a different story but it wouldn't be too much trouble to exchange your ten year old diesel for an identical petrol equivalent with the scrappage allowance.
It seems it had an effect in Cambridge and even labour's own candidate in Uxbridge contradicts Khan
It is also a fact that very many ordinary workers depend on their cars and despite the idea there is a limited scrapage scheme available they simply do not have the means to change their car to avoid a £12.50 a day charge
Indeed it is not only conservative councils who are objecting, we are now seeing Labour ones as well
ULEZ is typical LAB! It harms the poor and those who want to work.
Although the current government is useless, a close look at LAB does not provide an appealing alter
Morning all and @MikeSmithson I hope you are continuing to make a good recovery.
This betting is remarkable really. If the tories do lose all 4 (3) then it's going to create the media meme going into the election home straight. These are no longer mid-terms. There are two GE election options: Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October). So we're either 10 months away from the election or 15 months away.
Somerton & Frome I totally get, but would still be a stellar LibDem result. It's Selby & Ainsty that would really send shockwaves through the Conservative Party.
When I looked at Electoral Calculus yesterday I was a bit dismissive of their suggestion the Tories could be down to 100 seats, until I started looking at those 100. They contained several that on closer inspection might easily go. My own constituency of Tewkesbury is one, where incumbent Laurence Robertson is fighting off a local scandal and the LDs did very well at the May elections.
You could easily identify other similar 'outliers'.
I really do think an extraordinary result could be on the cards.
So do I, but I suspect that is wishful thinking on my part as I want the LDs to do well. I expect Labour to do very well, but for a complete slaughter the LDs need to do well in the blue wall seats. I am concerned that what might happen here is the Lab vote might be boosted leaving the seats as Tory holds. The LDs need to get their poll rating up still so that blue wall voters believe they are the challengers.
Polls like that Mid Beds poll don't help as that will split the vote so I wouldn't be surprised in seeing Tories putting out misinformation about the Lab threat in these seats as per the Telegraph.
Currently I wouldn't be surprised if the LDs make just 10 gains, but could easily make 50 gains.
Is that net gains? Bearing in mind it's very possible they will lose some of the seats they've taken at by-elections.
As my prediction was a wet finger in the air and with a wide tolerance and there are only 3 gains so far I think it makes little difference. Back in the day they were quite good at holding by election gains. In more recent general elections less so. Looking at the 3, North Shropshire seems a bit tough to hold. Tiverton and Honiton I would expect to hold and if they win Somerton and Frome I would expect them to hold that one. Chesham and Amersham I haven't a clue. Bit tough.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
That's a council estate ward which has always been a Labour stronghold.
On a very local level it shows how easily support can be lost once a party does something unpopular.
A Starmer government would have to make unpopular decisions and it might chose to make other unpopular decisions.
I stood as a Conservative in Kings Hedges once upon a time. Although that was a while ago, I can entirely see why the local LDs would end up splitting the anti-Tory vote and letting the Conservative win. Deeply frustrating for those of us who (now) want to see the Tories out on their backsides.
The Tories vote was up and it used to be a LD seat, it has never been a Tory seat as far as I can see, making the Tory win there even more astonishing given the national picture and showing how deeply unpopular the Labour council's congestion charge is in Cambridge
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
I’m beginning to get concerned by ULEZ, although if my present car doesn’t comply, I will be amazed. It appears that Khan’s proposals will mean that some of the standard routes around London cross GLC boundaries. For example, we often travel from N Essex into NW Kent, and at some point cross GLC boundaries.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
That's a council estate ward which has always been a Labour stronghold.
On a very local level it shows how easily support can be lost once a party does something unpopular.
A Starmer government would have to make unpopular decisions and it might chose to make other unpopular decisions.
I stood as a Conservative in Kings Hedges once upon a time. Although that was a while ago, I can entirely see why the local LDs would end up splitting the anti-Tory vote and letting the Conservative win. Deeply frustrating for those of us who (now) want to see the Tories out on their backsides.
The Tories vote was up and it used to be a LD seat, it has never been a Tory seat as far as I can see, making the Tory win there even more astonishing given the national picture and showing how deeply unpopular the Labour council's congestion charge is in Cambridge
I agree - it is a classic demonstration of how a local issue can upend everything. I am sure that the congestion charge issue has shored up the Tory vote on the one hand, contrary to the national position, which set them up to win. But Lab would *still have won* had there not been a considerable swing from Lab->LD (i.e. between the congestion-charge-ambivalent parties). So there are at least two factors in play.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
I’m beginning to get concerned by ULEZ, although if my present car doesn’t comply, I will be amazed. It appears that Khan’s proposals will mean that some of the standard routes around London cross GLC boundaries. For example, we often travel from N Essex into NW Kent, and at some point cross GLC boundaries.
I understand Heathrow is to be included and a lot of their workers will be subject to a £12.50 daily charge which could well be the reason labour's candidate in Uxbridge has come out against the charge.
Earlier this year I registered with TFL as occasionally I go to Heathrow to collect our son and his wife and my BMW is ULEZ compliant apparently.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
I must say I wonder this too. The Tories seem to have gone insane.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
That's certainly possible, even potentially more likely, but I think there is a chance. Seriously, if the Tories only have double digit MPs, who will the shadow cabinet be? What talent will be left? What will they believe? And what will hold together the rightists and the wets other than being against Labour? There will be a change of incentive - the best way to get anywhere as a wet if the right get in charge, or visa versa, will be to plough a separate path. If things get smashed to pieces, what is the point of trying to glue it back together rather than build something new?
As for Labour, again, I see SKS and his team of being severely anti the left of the Labour party. If he can I think he will expel many of the Corbynite supporting MPs left after the deselections that are ongoing, and maybe people to the centre of them. He can gain a whomping majority without left votes if the Tories continue to implode the way they are, and we need only look at his leadership election to see that left wingers voting for him means nothing about his loyalty to them once in power.
There has been talk of the parties falling apart essentially since the Coalition and Brexit, and I think the current political climate is the most likely to produce that outcome.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
We need to at least align with the EU on this one, EV manufacturers aren't going to speed up their rollouts just for the UK market.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
Perhaps. But as I pointed out in reply, until quite recently, government policy in both the US and Canada directly targeted indigenous populations - the Canadian orphanages scandal being one example. Some acknowledgment of that is hardly to be mocked.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
Also, if HMG screws up the industry side the way things are going at the moment, the electric cars will all be made furth of the UK (unless Morgan crank up production by 100x and go electric).
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
The Liberals pretty much got wiped out in the early 20th century. Why shouldn't that happen to the Tories in the 21st?
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
We need to at least align with the EU on this one, EV manufacturers aren't going to speed up their rollouts just for the UK market.
Feels like an easy win for the government to be honest. Labour would look like idiots to oppose it given they think the EU is wonderful.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
Access to electric cars for much of the population remains unrealistic due to their cost and issues over access to charging facilities.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
You have seen the climate change news yesterday? And you have grandchildren. Who are, I hope, lucky not to live in areas affected by traffic fumes.
I would venture to suggest that a few large inner cities like London should have strict controls but a balance has to be struck.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
Some people look at Khan and think he's being radical, and I look at Khan and say this isn't nearly enough. A society built around the idea of each family having 1, let alone 2, cars is not compatible with a sustainable planet. We cannot make that many "green" cars, but more than that, that many cars are just bad. The main issue I think most people have about punitive measures against car driving is that so much of the country has really shit public transport infrastructure so, without that, all they see is a reduction in quality of life. If we invested in public transport more first, get the low hanging fruit of those who WANT to reduce their dependency on cars but currently feel they have no other options, then start being a bit more restrictive on cars and keep doing it that way - investment in services prior to restriction - I think more people would be on board. It's the same reason that some people see this 15 minute city stuff and start to go bonkers - they don't believe the state can do anything good for them so they only see the negatives of such a scheme and not the potential upsides.
Many of us like having cars. The notion that every family should have a car seems entirely reasonable to me.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
We need to at least align with the EU on this one, EV manufacturers aren't going to speed up their rollouts just for the UK market.
Feels like an easy win for the government to be honest. Labour would look like idiots to oppose it given they think the EU is wonderful.
Both Labour and the Tories are addicted to pain at any cost for the proletariat when it comes to NET ZERO though. As people note, even the EU seem to have a slightly more balanced view on this one.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
The Iroquois confederacy was one. Many of the tribes fought wars of conquest.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
You have seen the climate change news yesterday? And you have grandchildren. Who are, I hope, lucky not to live in areas affected by traffic fumes.
I would venture to suggest that a few large inner cities like London should have strict controls but a balance has to be struck.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
Some people look at Khan and think he's being radical, and I look at Khan and say this isn't nearly enough. A society built around the idea of each family having 1, let alone 2, cars is not compatible with a sustainable planet. We cannot make that many "green" cars, but more than that, that many cars are just bad. The main issue I think most people have about punitive measures against car driving is that so much of the country has really shit public transport infrastructure so, without that, all they see is a reduction in quality of life. If we invested in public transport more first, get the low hanging fruit of those who WANT to reduce their dependency on cars but currently feel they have no other options, then start being a bit more restrictive on cars and keep doing it that way - investment in services prior to restriction - I think more people would be on board. It's the same reason that some people see this 15 minute city stuff and start to go bonkers - they don't believe the state can do anything good for them so they only see the negatives of such a scheme and not the potential upsides.
Many of us like having cars. The notion that every family should have a car seems entirely reasonable to me.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
Whilst the Tories have obviously improved over the last few months (although they are going back down again), some models have put them in the 70s (or lower) based on polling earlier this year, and I can definitely see things getting worse for the Tories if the water scandal leads to price rises, mortgages continue to spiral and people see prices rise (the average Joe doesn't get that halving inflation means "prices will rise slower" and instead likely believes it means seeing prices go back down).
I understand the Con Party is a well established party - but that is part of why I believe it needs to split / die. Again, it's like saying "how can my Nan possibly die, she's 103 and so good at living". All political parties split or become obsolete at some point. Why should the Cons be an exception, and why shouldn't it be now?
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
We need to at least align with the EU on this one, EV manufacturers aren't going to speed up their rollouts just for the UK market.
Don't worry. The next government will absolutely do that.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
That's a council estate ward which has always been a Labour stronghold.
On a very local level it shows how easily support can be lost once a party does something unpopular.
A Starmer government would have to make unpopular decisions and it might chose to make other unpopular decisions.
I stood as a Conservative in Kings Hedges once upon a time. Although that was a while ago, I can entirely see why the local LDs would end up splitting the anti-Tory vote and letting the Conservative win. Deeply frustrating for those of us who (now) want to see the Tories out on their backsides.
The Tories vote was up and it used to be a LD seat, it has never been a Tory seat as far as I can see, making the Tory win there even more astonishing given the national picture and showing how deeply unpopular the Labour council's congestion charge is in Cambridge
I agree - it is a classic demonstration of how a local issue can upend everything. I am sure that the congestion charge issue has shored up the Tory vote on the one hand, contrary to the national position, which set them up to win. But Lab would *still have won* had there not been a considerable swing from Lab->LD (i.e. between the congestion-charge-ambivalent parties). So there are at least two factors in play.
Perhaps but some LD voters may also have gone Tory if they were anti congestion charge
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
No. But we bought his old car.
I'm running a 2008 diesel passat at the moment. Not as a classic or cherished or anything like that, but as cheap motoring. Cost me £500 to buy plus £300 to get it through an MOT (broken springs). It's about 10p a mile on fuel, and despite being 15 years old it drives like it's new - I do about 20k miles a year in it. I suspect its milage between failures at 15 years old is better than anything JLR sell new today.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
The Liberals pretty much got wiped out in the early 20th century. Why shouldn't that happen to the Tories in the 21st?
To be wiped out, you need a rival on the same side of the political spectrum.
However unpopular Scottish Labour became, they would never have been wiped out by the Scottish Conservatives. But, the SNP could present themselves as an uncorrupt (ha ha!) left wing alternative.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
That's certainly possible, even potentially more likely, but I think there is a chance. Seriously, if the Tories only have double digit MPs, who will the shadow cabinet be? What talent will be left? What will they believe? And what will hold together the rightists and the wets other than being against Labour? There will be a change of incentive - the best way to get anywhere as a wet if the right get in charge, or visa versa, will be to plough a separate path. If things get smashed to pieces, what is the point of trying to glue it back together rather than build something new?
As for Labour, again, I see SKS and his team of being severely anti the left of the Labour party. If he can I think he will expel many of the Corbynite supporting MPs left after the deselections that are ongoing, and maybe people to the centre of them. He can gain a whomping majority without left votes if the Tories continue to implode the way they are, and we need only look at his leadership election to see that left wingers voting for him means nothing about his loyalty to them once in power.
There has been talk of the parties falling apart essentially since the Coalition and Brexit, and I think the current political climate is the most likely to produce that outcome.
If the wets split and formed a separate party they would get literally 0 MPs under FPTP compared to the even handful they might get even with a heavy Tory defeat. The right would always get probably 100 to 150 MPs even if the wets left however.
The left of Labour if they split under FPTP would also get 0 seats (except maybe Corbyn as an Independent in Islington North) so also would stay even in Starmer Labour unless there was PR
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
No. But we bought his old car.
I'm running a 2008 diesel passat at the moment. Not as a classic or cherished or anything like that, but as cheap motoring. Cost me £500 to buy plus £300 to get it through an MOT (broken springs). It's about 10p a mile on fuel, and despite being 15 years old it drives like it's new - I do about 20k miles a year in it. I suspect its milage between failures at 15 years old is better than anything JLR sell new today.
A wonderful car. The garage I get it seen to when it needs a bit of tlc at said the engine will go further than modern diesels as it has no DPF.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
You have seen the climate change news yesterday? And you have grandchildren. Who are, I hope, lucky not to live in areas affected by traffic fumes.
I would venture to suggest that a few large inner cities like London should have strict controls but a balance has to be struck.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
Some people look at Khan and think he's being radical, and I look at Khan and say this isn't nearly enough. A society built around the idea of each family having 1, let alone 2, cars is not compatible with a sustainable planet. We cannot make that many "green" cars, but more than that, that many cars are just bad. The main issue I think most people have about punitive measures against car driving is that so much of the country has really shit public transport infrastructure so, without that, all they see is a reduction in quality of life. If we invested in public transport more first, get the low hanging fruit of those who WANT to reduce their dependency on cars but currently feel they have no other options, then start being a bit more restrictive on cars and keep doing it that way - investment in services prior to restriction - I think more people would be on board. It's the same reason that some people see this 15 minute city stuff and start to go bonkers - they don't believe the state can do anything good for them so they only see the negatives of such a scheme and not the potential upsides.
Many of us like having cars. The notion that every family should have a car seems entirely reasonable to me.
It allows people the ability to make choices.
There are many who do not think other people should be allowed to make choices.
"Con gain from Congestion charge fiasco"" apparently
That is certainly an issue that has helped the Tories there recently but the biggest gainers were the LDs and you would have expected them to be hit hard if that was solely the case. I expect it is more complicated than that.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
We need to at least align with the EU on this one, EV manufacturers aren't going to speed up their rollouts just for the UK market.
Feels like an easy win for the government to be honest. Labour would look like idiots to oppose it given they think the EU is wonderful.
Both Labour and the Tories are addicted to pain at any cost for the proletariat when it comes to NET ZERO though. As people note, even the EU seem to have a slightly more balanced view on this one.
"Some of you may even die. That is a price that I am willing to pay."
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
The Liberals pretty much got wiped out in the early 20th century. Why shouldn't that happen to the Tories in the 21st?
The Liberals only got near wiped out as the Labour Party replaced them as the main non Tory party after universal suffrage.
The Tories would only get wiped out if a Faragite Nationalist Party replaced them as the main party of the right
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
The expansion of ULEZ in London has been turned into what you describe as a "war against cars" by Conservative media shills like Nick Ferrari who considers it to be an erosion of personal freedom and an expansion of the nanny state. He goes on about it every day.
The percentage of vehicles that don't comply is now minimal. I keyed in my son's 2003 Mini Cooper S and an old 53 plate Fiesta we once owned and both were compliant. Fairly recent diesels are a different story but it wouldn't be too much trouble to exchange your ten year old diesel for an identical petrol equivalent with the scrappage allowance.
If it was really minimal why even bother introducing the scheme in the first place? Its a small minority for sure, but not minimal.
It hits the low and middle paid workers hardest, who are the ones who are shafted continuously by various govt policies.
Middle paid workers are often not eligible for the scrappage scheme. The scrappage scheme pays £2,000. The AA has 23710 second hand cars for sale in London, of those 167 are less than £2,000 (a lot of which won't be compliant either).
It is actually a good scheme, but badly introduced, unnecessarily losing support by not acknowledging and being blase about the real costs imposed during a cost of living crisis.
But you are ignoring those who have already switched to ULEZ compliance in anticipation of expansion.
I don't dispute your claim that the timing might be inappropriate in a financial crisis. I was dismissing BigG. 's notion that it was a 'war on cars'. There are plenty of older ULEZ compliant vehicles available outside London for those with a little imagination. Ulez is nonetheless a big stick with which Conservative Politicians are using to beat the Mayor.
Here in Wales we do have a war on the motorist through the reduction of maximum motorway speed limits to 50mph on the grounds of reduced pollution, which is a nonsense.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
This "but it's the poor people we need to help" argument is such bollocks, as the same people calling for ULEZ to be curtailed are also adamant that Junior Doctors should be grateful for their £14 an hour.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
The Iroquois confederacy was one. Many of the tribes fought wars of conquest.
A novel interpretation. Those lads certainly wasted their first 14 centuries in getting their empire together.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
The Liberals pretty much got wiped out in the early 20th century. Why shouldn't that happen to the Tories in the 21st?
To be wiped out, you need a rival on the same side of the political spectrum.
However unpopular Scottish Labour became, they would never have been wiped out by the Scottish Conservatives. But, the SNP could present themselves as an uncorrupt (ha ha!) left wing alternative.
And even then Labour now winning back voters lost to the SNP
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
The Iroquois confederacy was one. Many of the tribes fought wars of conquest.
A novel interpretation. Those lads certainly wasted their first 14 centuries in getting their empire together.
It was all a question of numbers. Had the Indians, rather than the Americans, had the numerical advantage, they'd be running the show today. And, the most powerful tribes would have put down the rest.
We know, from Central and South America, that the Indians were perfectly capable of establishing mighty empires.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
The expansion of ULEZ in London has been turned into what you describe as a "war against cars" by Conservative media shills like Nick Ferrari who considers it to be an erosion of personal freedom and an expansion of the nanny state. He goes on about it every day.
The percentage of vehicles that don't comply is now minimal. I keyed in my son's 2003 Mini Cooper S and an old 53 plate Fiesta we once owned and both were compliant. Fairly recent diesels are a different story but it wouldn't be too much trouble to exchange your ten year old diesel for an identical petrol equivalent with the scrappage allowance.
If it was really minimal why even bother introducing the scheme in the first place? Its a small minority for sure, but not minimal.
It hits the low and middle paid workers hardest, who are the ones who are shafted continuously by various govt policies.
Middle paid workers are often not eligible for the scrappage scheme. The scrappage scheme pays £2,000. The AA has 23710 second hand cars for sale in London, of those 167 are less than £2,000 (a lot of which won't be compliant either).
It is actually a good scheme, but badly introduced, unnecessarily losing support by not acknowledging and being blase about the real costs imposed during a cost of living crisis.
But you are ignoring those who have already switched to ULEZ compliance in anticipation of expansion.
I don't dispute your claim that the timing might be inappropriate in a financial crisis. I was dismissing BigG. 's notion that it was a 'war on cars'. There are plenty of older ULEZ compliant vehicles available outside London for those with a little imagination. Ulez is nonetheless a big stick withwh Conservative Politicians with which to beat the Mayor.
Here in Wales we do have a war on the motorist through the reduction of maximum motorway speed limits to 50mph on the grounds of reduced pollution, which is a nonsense.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
This "but it's the poor people we need to help" argument is such bollocks, as the same people calling for ULEZ to be curtailed are also adamant that Junior Doctors should be grateful for their £14 an hour.
I am not dismissing anything. I would still introduce the scheme but do:
£5 7am-7pm for expanded scheme phasing up cost to full cost over 5 years but keeping hours same £3000 scrappage available to all First 2 visits free to avoid fining once a year in London type drivers
I think that would actually improve air quality more although it would cost a bit more but save poorer workers so is more progressive.
I mean of course it's not surprising that a policy which shafts the poor is receiving acclaim from across the political spectrum; the poor have traditionally had a subordinate voice and have traditionally been shafted.
What is surprising is that this is being championed by the left.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
You have seen the climate change news yesterday? And you have grandchildren. Who are, I hope, lucky not to live in areas affected by traffic fumes.
I would venture to suggest that a few large inner cities like London should have strict controls but a balance has to be struck.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
Some people look at Khan and think he's being radical, and I look at Khan and say this isn't nearly enough. A society built around the idea of each family having 1, let alone 2, cars is not compatible with a sustainable planet. We cannot make that many "green" cars, but more than that, that many cars are just bad. The main issue I think most people have about punitive measures against car driving is that so much of the country has really shit public transport infrastructure so, without that, all they see is a reduction in quality of life. If we invested in public transport more first, get the low hanging fruit of those who WANT to reduce their dependency on cars but currently feel they have no other options, then start being a bit more restrictive on cars and keep doing it that way - investment in services prior to restriction - I think more people would be on board. It's the same reason that some people see this 15 minute city stuff and start to go bonkers - they don't believe the state can do anything good for them so they only see the negatives of such a scheme and not the potential upsides.
Many of us like having cars. The notion that every family should have a car seems entirely reasonable to me.
As people know I don't posses a car or motorcycle so relatively neutral on this. It does come across to me though that there is a subtext to many of the everyone should buy an EV and ULEZ is great people that they see (possibly subconciously) as a lot of people being forced out of car ownership as a feature. A return to a golden age where those well off had cars and the poor took the bus. Less congestion for them to drive around in, or turning the roads into Zil lanes as they would say in Russia
"Con gain from Congestion charge fiasco"" apparently
That is certainly an issue that has helped the Tories there recently but the biggest gainers were the LDs and you would have expected them to be hit hard if that was solely the case. I expect it is more complicated than that.
The change since 2022 gives a better illustration:
Con +22% Lab -17% LibD +3% Grn -8%
There's probably a bit of churn between the parties as well.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
I mean of course it's not surprising that a policy which shafts the poor is receiving acclaim from across the political spectrum; the poor have traditionally had a subordinate voice and have traditionally been shafted.
What is surprising is that this is being championed by the left.
Indeed. The Tories are such strident champions of the poor.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
You have seen the climate change news yesterday? And you have grandchildren. Who are, I hope, lucky not to live in areas affected by traffic fumes.
I would venture to suggest that a few large inner cities like London should have strict controls but a balance has to be struck.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
Some people look at Khan and think he's being radical, and I look at Khan and say this isn't nearly enough. A society built around the idea of each family having 1, let alone 2, cars is not compatible with a sustainable planet. We cannot make that many "green" cars, but more than that, that many cars are just bad. The main issue I think most people have about punitive measures against car driving is that so much of the country has really shit public transport infrastructure so, without that, all they see is a reduction in quality of life. If we invested in public transport more first, get the low hanging fruit of those who WANT to reduce their dependency on cars but currently feel they have no other options, then start being a bit more restrictive on cars and keep doing it that way - investment in services prior to restriction - I think more people would be on board. It's the same reason that some people see this 15 minute city stuff and start to go bonkers - they don't believe the state can do anything good for them so they only see the negatives of such a scheme and not the potential upsides.
Many of us like having cars. The notion that every family should have a car seems entirely reasonable to me.
As people know I don't posses a car or motorcycle so relatively neutral on this. It does come across to me though that there is a subtext to many of the everyone should buy an EV and ULEZ is great people that they see (possibly subconciously) as a lot of people being forced out of car ownership as a feature. A return to a golden age where those well off had cars and the poor took the bus. Less congestion for them to drive around in, or turning the roads into Zil lanes as they would say in Russia
It was noticeable how much more pleasant driving was in spring 2020.
I'm certain there were influential people who thought "wouldn't it be wonderful if the roads were always like this".
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
The Iroquois confederacy was one. Many of the tribes fought wars of conquest.
A novel interpretation. Those lads certainly wasted their first 14 centuries in getting their empire together.
It was all a question of numbers. Had the Indians, rather than the Americans, had the numerical advantage, they'd be running the show today. And, the most powerful tribes would have put down the rest.
We know, from Central and South America, that the Indians were perfectly capable of establishing mighty empires.
The Iroquois suffered two fatal pieces of bad luck. The French lost the Seven Years War (ending their ability to play off France and the UK against each other) and then the British lost the War of Independence.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
I mean of course it's not surprising that a policy which shafts the poor is receiving acclaim from across the political spectrum; the poor have traditionally had a subordinate voice and have traditionally been shafted.
What is surprising is that this is being championed by the left.
Indeed. The Tories are such strident champions of the poor.
They are on the right side of this one. For whatever nefarious reasons.
Morning all and @MikeSmithson I hope you are continuing to make a good recovery.
This betting is remarkable really. If the tories do lose all 4 (3) then it's going to create the media meme going into the election home straight. These are no longer mid-terms. There are two GE election options: Spring (May/June) or Autumn (October). So we're either 10 months away from the election or 15 months away.
Somerton & Frome I totally get, but would still be a stellar LibDem result. It's Selby & Ainsty that would really send shockwaves through the Conservative Party.
When I looked at Electoral Calculus yesterday I was a bit dismissive of their suggestion the Tories could be down to 100 seats, until I started looking at those 100. They contained several that on closer inspection might easily go. My own constituency of Tewkesbury is one, where incumbent Laurence Robertson is fighting off a local scandal and the LDs did very well at the May elections.
You could easily identify other similar 'outliers'.
I really do think an extraordinary result could be on the cards.
So do I, but I suspect that is wishful thinking on my part as I want the LDs to do well. I expect Labour to do very well, but for a complete slaughter the LDs need to do well in the blue wall seats. I am concerned that what might happen here is the Lab vote might be boosted leaving the seats as Tory holds. The LDs need to get their poll rating up still so that blue wall voters believe they are the challengers.
Polls like that Mid Beds poll don't help as that will split the vote so I wouldn't be surprised in seeing Tories putting out misinformation about the Lab threat in these seats as per the Telegraph.
Currently I wouldn't be surprised if the LDs make just 10 gains, but could easily make 50 gains.
Is that net gains? Bearing in mind it's very possible they will lose some of the seats they've taken at by-elections.
By-election wins are not generally counted when considering the gain/loss at a general election. It’s just calculated on general election to general election.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
The Iroquois confederacy was one. Many of the tribes fought wars of conquest.
A novel interpretation. Those lads certainly wasted their first 14 centuries in getting their empire together.
It was all a question of numbers. Had the Indians, rather than the Americans, had the numerical advantage, they'd be running the show today. And, the most powerful tribes would have put down the rest.
We know, from Central and South America, that the Indians were perfectly capable of establishing mighty empires.
Golly, them ‘Indians’ are all the same. All humans are perfectly capable of lots of things especially in concert, but in 14000 years native North Americans did not form an empire, and their way of life and in many cases their lives were destroyed by Europeans, either representing their own ethnic empires or wishing to set up a shiny new one.
WRT to war on motorists etc on every front, as well as heat pumps, insulation and all the other inconveniences, it seems to me there are about three things which cover it:
It would be nice to save the planet, but if the planet is to be saved it won't happen by anything near net zero being achieved, because it isn't going to happen. Ask China, India and Africa. So while we are happy to recycle my Fair Isle jampot covers and put 27 bins out to be sent to Chinese landfill we are not going to pay £Nzillion for a car that runs on water, or not have one at all, or pay £xzillion for a noisy heat pump that doesn't work. And we shall carry on flying and watch celebs go by private jet to virtue signal. And we shall on the whole vote accordingly while talking the talk. And right wing Tories and Guardianistas are exactly the same as each other.
This will remain the case unless and until we think it will actually make a difference. The rest is noise.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
The main issue I think most people have about punitive measures against car driving is that so much of the country has really shit public transport infrastructure so, without that, all they see is a reduction in quality of life. If we invested in public transport more first, get the low hanging fruit of those who WANT to reduce their dependency on cars but currently feel they have no other options, then start being a bit more restrictive on cars and keep doing it that way - investment in services prior to restriction - I think more people would be on board. It's the same reason that some people see this 15 minute city stuff and start to go bonkers - they don't believe the state can do anything good for them so they only see the negatives of such a scheme and not the potential upsides.
Of course in theory the Cambridge scheme is designed that way -- first improve the public transport, and only introduce the congestion charge after that as the way of paying for it. It still runs into massive headwinds, partly from people who focus on the "charge" element only and partly from people sceptical that even with more money there will be a better bus service from Stagecoach.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Very, very few engines will do 500k on the original crank bearings, cams, rings, etc. Also by that time every seal and ancillary (water pump, oil pump, alternator) will have been replaced multiple times over.
So you can make an engine last 500k but it's going to require an unfeasible amount of money spent on it or meticulous maintenance (oil change every 2,000 - 3,000 miles) and a lot of luck. This reckoning might be different in shit holes with very low labour costs.
The Prius seems to be the mileage king and they seem to go to 300,000+ if they are well maintained. This is probably a consequence of being Atkinson Cycle rather than Otto Cycle engines and thereby less stressed.
I mean of course it's not surprising that a policy which shafts the poor is receiving acclaim from across the political spectrum; the poor have traditionally had a subordinate voice and have traditionally been shafted.
What is surprising is that this is being championed by the left.
It's a policy that benefits the poor overall because most poor people don't have a car, the ones that do will mostly have a compliant car because most cars are compliant, and the poor are more likely to live in areas blighted by poor air quality. The few poor people who are negatively affected by it are simply being used as human shields for richer people who don't like it, and the motoring lobby. It is a good policy that will save lives. I support it because I want my kids to breathe clean air. I don't have a lot of time for people who think they have a right to poison my children's lungs and come up with all kinds of specious arguments like it's a conspiracy to drive the poor off the roads.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
But there are, surely, ways around this. The ULEZ extension will raise money (the existing ULEZ apparently raised over £220M in 2022). Some of that could be used for grants or subsidised loans/hire schemes for those in possession of a ULEZ non-compliant car and a legitimate need to drive into the zone (work, other responsibilities there with travel times or routes that are not well served by public transport) so that for those who will be hit hard by ULEZ it's cost neutral.
If I was a local MP/councillor I'd be campaigning for this, not to limit the ULEZ, particuarly given that poorer people also likely live and send their kids to school in areas with the worst traffic pollution close to the major roads.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
Interestingly the protest against ULEZ in Glasgow involved a march from Glasgow’s very affluent west end to the city centre. I’m sure these folk were motivated by selfless concern for the poor rather than whiny, frustrated entitlement.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
The Iroquois confederacy was one. Many of the tribes fought wars of conquest.
A novel interpretation. Those lads certainly wasted their first 14 centuries in getting their empire together.
It was all a question of numbers. Had the Indians, rather than the Americans, had the numerical advantage, they'd be running the show today. And, the most powerful tribes would have put down the rest.
We know, from Central and South America, that the Indians were perfectly capable of establishing mighty empires.
Golly, them ‘Indians’ are all the same. All humans are perfectly capable of lots of things especially in concert, but in 14000 years native North Americans did not form an empire, and their way of life and in many cases their lives were destroyed by Europeans, either representing their own ethnic empires or wishing to set up a shiny new one.
As GM Fraser put it, "When frightened, selfish, men, that is the mass of humanity, meet in the Wilderness, the weakest goes under."
The tribes fought and killed for land, plunder, and slaves, just as the Europeans did.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
The Liberals pretty much got wiped out in the early 20th century. Why shouldn't that happen to the Tories in the 21st?
To be wiped out, you need a rival on the same side of the political spectrum.
However unpopular Scottish Labour became, they would never have been wiped out by the Scottish Conservatives. But, the SNP could present themselves as an uncorrupt (ha ha!) left wing alternative.
You're probably right, and certainly would be under a PR system. But FPTP is very unforgiving of being the third placed national party- they tend to get squeezed to nearly nothing.
So there is a pathway- a narrow one, but broader than it seemed two years ago.
Let's suppose the Conservatives do badly in 2024/5. Worse than the 165 Major got in 1997- after all, they're polling as badly/a bit worse than in the runup to '97, and the economic outlook looks worse. And whilst Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major.
Now let's suppose that the Conservative response is to go full on comfort blanket culture war under Braverman or Badenoch. This gees up the remaining activists, but repels another slice of centre right voters.
Now let's suppose that the Lib Dems are opportunistic so-and-so's and go pale orange book on economics. More free market than Labour, socially at peace with the 21st century. You could go from a political map of Socialist to Conservative (with liberalism squeezed out) to a spectrum running Socialist to Liberal (wth conservatism squeezed out). Red Wall Boris Tories going to Labour, Blue Wall Tories going Lib Dem.
If I had to poinpoint where this fails, step 3 seems more likely than step 2. I'm not sure I'd put money on this future happening- it's still longish odds and a long time to wait. But it's less impossible than it has been for a long time.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
The Tories might quite like Labour to win Uxbridge and then for the MP to swing in behind ULEZ. It would be a good example of Labour not being honest with the voters.
Two months time, it stops being a political issue, because in all likelihood it will have happened (barring events in the High Court). At that point, I suspect it will become clear that the benefits are greater and the costs are lower than they are perceived now. That's been the pattern with most War On Car measures; very unpopular in advance, unpopular on launch day, popular after six months. (Something about it's like having a baby.)
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
I think it's true to say that the British people will put up with a lot.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
Also, if HMG screws up the industry side the way things are going at the moment, the electric cars will all be made furth of the UK (unless Morgan crank up production by 100x and go electric).
The Morgan Super 3 is a BEV. It's fucking horrible obviously.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Very, very few engines will do 500k on the original crank bearings, cams, rings, etc. Also by that time every seal and ancillary (water pump, oil pump, alternator) will have been replaced multiple times over.
So you can make an engine last 500k but it's going to require an unfeasible amount of money spent on it or meticulous maintenance (oil change every 2,000 - 3,000 miles) and a lot of luck. This reckoning might be different in shit holes with very low labour costs.
The Prius seems to be the mileage king and they seem to go to 300,000+ if they are well maintained. This is probably a consequence of being Atkinson Cycle rather than Otto Cycle engines and thereby less stressed.
300,000+ is not an unreasonable projection for many of the EVs now being built. The suspension might need attention from time to time.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Where are people going to get £2,000 from?
They'll need that kind of money to keep their old banger on the road anyway. Cars cost money to keep running, especially if they're old. They'll get the scrap or resale value of their previous car, too, which will help. I belive that We Buy Any Car buy, er, any car. And there is a scrappage scheme, too.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Very, very few engines will do 500k on the original crank bearings, cams, rings, etc. Also by that time every seal and ancillary (water pump, oil pump, alternator) will have been replaced multiple times over.
So you can make an engine last 500k but it's going to require an unfeasible amount of money spent on it or meticulous maintenance (oil change every 2,000 - 3,000 miles) and a lot of luck. This reckoning might be different in shit holes with very low labour costs.
The Prius seems to be the mileage king and they seem to go to 300,000+ if they are well maintained. This is probably a consequence of being Atkinson Cycle rather than Otto Cycle engines and thereby less stressed.
300,000+ is not an unreasonable projection for many of the EVs now being built. The suspension might need attention from time to time.
They guy with the million mile Tesla has had eight motors but is still on the original battery pack!
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Where are people going to get £2,000 from?
The growth in the economy and cut in inflation that Sunak has promised to deliver.
FPT, I agree with Carnforth. The USA was indeed led by rapacious imperialists, but it expanded by defeating other rapacious imperialists (Spanish, French, British and Indian). That was just the way of the world, till very recently. Right of Conquest was a recognised part of customary international law.
What was the nascent Indian/Native American empire that was thwarted?
The Iroquois confederacy was one. Many of the tribes fought wars of conquest.
A novel interpretation. Those lads certainly wasted their first 14 centuries in getting their empire together.
It was all a question of numbers. Had the Indians, rather than the Americans, had the numerical advantage, they'd be running the show today. And, the most powerful tribes would have put down the rest.
We know, from Central and South America, that the Indians were perfectly capable of establishing mighty empires.
Golly, them ‘Indians’ are all the same. All humans are perfectly capable of lots of things especially in concert, but in 14000 years native North Americans did not form an empire, and their way of life and in many cases their lives were destroyed by Europeans, either representing their own ethnic empires or wishing to set up a shiny new one.
As GM Fraser put it, "When frightened, selfish, men, that is the mass of humanity, meet in the Wilderness, the weakest goes under."
The tribes fought and killed for land, plunder, and slaves, just as the Europeans did.
Not having to examine past sins because everyone was at it is some of the laziest and self exculpatory thinking going.
I had a coversation once with a Cardiff taxi driver. We were in a Lada, the very same model as I was driving at the time.
His viewpoint? They were great, he could argue with a concrete bollard and get away with it, but they'd last around 100,000 miles before they dropped to bits. After that just buy a new one - they were cheap enough.
Comments
Ditto P&P
On a very local level it shows how easily support can be lost once a party does something unpopular.
A Starmer government would have to make unpopular decisions and it might chose to make other unpopular decisions.
It might be that Khan wins his court case, but this is not just an issue with conservative councils, but labour as well
It is also true that most of us are not living in a large city and effected by air quality
More popular than Keir Starmer (at number 3), Rishi Sunak (6), Boris Johnson (9), Nigel Farage (11), and Tony Blair (15).
SKS Fans please explain last nights Tory Gain in Cambridge By Election
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
CON: 34.9% (+3.0)
LAB: 33.6% (-5.6)
LDM: 23.5% (+8.5)
GRN: 8.0% (-6.0)
Conservative GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2023.
Though it's not a net figure... The dislike number was the problem in 2019... almost half don't like him now.
He's more disliked than Johnson...
https://twitter.com/thomaswpenny/status/1676316314544099331?s=46
Dont expect a reasoned response from SKS Fans
https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/
*1-4 units range. But that in itself is rather worrying as one would normally assume like you do, the reverse.
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
Both Big ULEZ and the Cambridge Scheme (which seems excessive, but if councils can't raise enough Council Tax to fund public transport, what are they meant to do?) are probably close to the point of maximum political pain. Lots of London Conservatives ran in 2022 on a "roll back LTNs" platform; it did them very little good, politically.
https://centreforlondon.org/blog/ltns-local-elections/
Even here in Havering, where the War On Cars is limited to making some roads near schools residents only around opening and closing times, there's the same pattern. As the schemes get established, they become more popular.
Although the current government is useless, a close look at LAB does not provide an appealing alter
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Andy_Burnham
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Keir_Starmer
+14 VS -8 (22% LEAD ON LIKE VS DISLIKE)
CON: 34.9% (+3.0)
LAB: 33.6% (-5.6)
LDM: 23.5% (+8.5)
GRN: 8.0% (-6.0)
Conservative GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2023
"Con gain from Congestion charge fiasco"" apparently
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I envy those 7%!!
and the additional 3% who have willed him out of existence!!
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Earlier this year I registered with TFL as occasionally I go to Heathrow to collect our son and his wife and my BMW is ULEZ compliant apparently.
Meanwhile the Home Office finally plans to do something sensible about the police - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/home-office-plans-overhaul-to-tackle-scourge-of-rogue-police-rsbpcl6w6.
As for Labour, again, I see SKS and his team of being severely anti the left of the Labour party. If he can I think he will expel many of the Corbynite supporting MPs left after the deselections that are ongoing, and maybe people to the centre of them. He can gain a whomping majority without left votes if the Tories continue to implode the way they are, and we need only look at his leadership election to see that left wingers voting for him means nothing about his loyalty to them once in power.
There has been talk of the parties falling apart essentially since the Coalition and Brexit, and I think the current political climate is the most likely to produce that outcome.
The big test on cars is to come. Banning the sale of new ICEs in 2030 will be revolutionary. I know there are people on here who think that, in reality, the ban won't make a difference as everyone will be buying electric vehicles anyway, but I'm not convinced, and neither are the EU.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
But as I pointed out in reply, until quite recently, government policy in both the US and Canada directly targeted indigenous populations - the Canadian orphanages scandal being one example.
Some acknowledgment of that is hardly to be mocked.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Only 7 years to 2030!
I understand the Con Party is a well established party - but that is part of why I believe it needs to split / die. Again, it's like saying "how can my Nan possibly die, she's 103 and so good at living". All political parties split or become obsolete at some point. Why should the Cons be an exception, and why shouldn't it be now?
However unpopular Scottish Labour became, they would never have been wiped out by the Scottish Conservatives. But, the SNP could present themselves as an uncorrupt (ha ha!) left wing alternative.
The left of Labour if they split under FPTP would also get 0 seats (except maybe Corbyn as an Independent in Islington North) so also would stay even in Starmer Labour unless there was PR
There are many who do not think other people should be allowed to make choices.
The Tories would only get wiped out if a Faragite Nationalist Party replaced them as the main party of the right
I don't dispute your claim that the timing might be inappropriate in a financial crisis. I was dismissing BigG. 's notion that it was a 'war on cars'. There are plenty of older ULEZ compliant vehicles available outside London for those with a little imagination. Ulez is nonetheless a big stick with which Conservative Politicians are using to beat the Mayor.
Here in Wales we do have a war on the motorist through the reduction of maximum motorway speed limits to 50mph on the grounds of reduced pollution, which is a nonsense. This "but it's the poor people we need to help" argument is such bollocks, as the same people calling for ULEZ to be curtailed are also adamant that Junior Doctors should be grateful for their £14 an hour.
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
We know, from Central and South America, that the Indians were perfectly capable of establishing mighty empires.
£5 7am-7pm for expanded scheme phasing up cost to full cost over 5 years but keeping hours same
£3000 scrappage available to all
First 2 visits free to avoid fining once a year in London type drivers
I think that would actually improve air quality more although it would cost a bit more but save poorer workers so is more progressive.
What is surprising is that this is being championed by the left.
Con +22%
Lab -17%
LibD +3%
Grn -8%
There's probably a bit of churn between the parties as well.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
I'm certain there were influential people who thought "wouldn't it be wonderful if the roads were always like this".
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
All humans are perfectly capable of lots of things especially in concert, but in 14000 years native North Americans did not form an empire, and their way of life and in many cases their lives were destroyed by Europeans, either representing their own ethnic empires or wishing to set up a shiny new one.
It would be nice to save the planet, but if the planet is to be saved it won't happen by anything near net zero being achieved, because it isn't going to happen. Ask China, India and Africa. So while we are happy to recycle my Fair Isle jampot covers and put 27 bins out to be sent to Chinese landfill we are not going to pay £Nzillion for a car that runs on water, or not have one at all, or pay £xzillion for a noisy heat pump that doesn't work. And we shall carry on flying and watch celebs go by private jet to virtue signal. And we shall on the whole vote accordingly while talking the talk. And right wing Tories and Guardianistas are exactly the same as each other.
This will remain the case unless and until we think it will actually make a difference. The rest is noise.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
So you can make an engine last 500k but it's going to require an unfeasible amount of money spent on it or meticulous maintenance (oil change every 2,000 - 3,000 miles) and a lot of luck. This reckoning might be different in shit holes with very low labour costs.
The Prius seems to be the mileage king and they seem to go to 300,000+ if they are well maintained. This is probably a consequence of being Atkinson Cycle rather than Otto Cycle engines and thereby less stressed.
If I was a local MP/councillor I'd be campaigning for this, not to limit the ULEZ, particuarly given that poorer people also likely live and send their kids to school in areas with the worst traffic pollution close to the major roads.
The tribes fought and killed for land, plunder, and slaves, just as the Europeans did.
So there is a pathway- a narrow one, but broader than it seemed two years ago.
Let's suppose the Conservatives do badly in 2024/5. Worse than the 165 Major got in 1997- after all, they're polling as badly/a bit worse than in the runup to '97, and the economic outlook looks worse. And whilst Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major.
Now let's suppose that the Conservative response is to go full on comfort blanket culture war under Braverman or Badenoch. This gees up the remaining activists, but repels another slice of centre right voters.
Now let's suppose that the Lib Dems are opportunistic so-and-so's and go pale orange book on economics. More free market than Labour, socially at peace with the 21st century. You could go from a political map of Socialist to Conservative (with liberalism squeezed out) to a spectrum running Socialist to Liberal (wth conservatism squeezed out). Red Wall Boris Tories going to Labour, Blue Wall Tories going Lib Dem.
If I had to poinpoint where this fails, step 3 seems more likely than step 2. I'm not sure I'd put money on this future happening- it's still longish odds and a long time to wait. But it's less impossible than it has been for a long time.
The suspension might need attention from time to time.
I had a coversation once with a Cardiff taxi driver. We were in a Lada, the very same model as I was driving at the time.
His viewpoint? They were great, he could argue with a concrete bollard and get away with it, but they'd last around 100,000 miles before they dropped to bits. After that just buy a new one - they were cheap enough.