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.
Beating one's breast because the world marched to different values in the past is some of the silliest thinking.
"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 byelection only happened because the previous Labour councillor resigned less than a week after being elected due to some unspecified falling out with the party:
I wouldn't be surprised if some voters were unhappy about having to vote again, and perhaps some were on the ex-councillor's side of whatever Labour factional split this was.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" 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.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I’ve just had to shell out a grand to keep my 2006 Alfa on the road 🙁
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.
The petrol nissan primeras built in Sunderland in the 90s could easily do 300-400k with just normal maintenance. I had one, as did loads of taxi drivers, a fantastic car
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
Cameroonism is the last arguably functional period of conservative governance - which also allowed the Tories to make inroads with typically LD voters. Why do you think a Wet Tory party - socially liberal, economically conservative, willing to form close ties to Europe but not wanting to re enter - would not make some inroads?
You also seem to think that potential electoral victory is the only reason parties split - sometimes they split because of electoral defeat and the party that is left with the ruins doesn't agree on how to go forward. The Tories will be a different party after the next GE, I don't know who the most moderate MP will be, but if someone like Badenoch is the leader they will be a pretty extreme party. It will present the best opportunity any "wet" has ever had to go for a new party.
I also think if one of the parties split, the other will, because most of what holds the parties together at the moment is the animosity towards its rival. If the Labour party majority is unassailable for a few GEs, as is entirely possible under current polling, what is there to lose by starting a new political project with a long term aim? Go to the Tory money men that don't like the culture war stuff but do like Tory economics, and you have a good funding base. If the Corbynite MPs get the shaft, they could more openly join with the current union upswing and maybe make a play for some union funding from the unions more SKS sceptical, especially if SKS governs feeling he doesn't need union support and continues his talk about his "fiscal rules" that won't allow public sector increases. I can see Labour getting a stonking majority with most of it's actual members not being that happy about voting for them - a recipe for dissatisfaction with governance and willingness to join a new political party / project.
Again, I accept I could be and am possibly likely wrong. But I think the idea that because FPTP makes parties splitting unlikely and therefore it won't happen doesn't take into account that we've always had FPTP and it has happened in the past anyway, because parties are coalitions of voters with differing interests and if those interests are upheld, or change, and the parties don't change or move away from those interests too much, new parties emerge to meet those interests and attempt to form new coalitions.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
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.
My 2008 fiat 500 was knackered by 100 000 miles, but I had my money's worth and scrapped it when the brakes needed major work.
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" nonsense?
What depreciation? I recently spent £2k on a 14 year old car. There's little left to depreciate. No, the cost is if your clutch goes or gearbox or something major on the engine or you get structural rust through or the engine electronics gives up etc etc. All cars get to the point where they are no longer economical to repair. So they get scrapped - or saved by a hobbyist happy to pour time and cash into keeping them going as a leisure car.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
There’s no questioning Biden’s mental capacity, when he can clearly see how much better Daisy will be in the NATO job than our baldy - who’s handicapped by being both a soldier and popular politician.
something has quietly crept up on UK politics with a big betting implication, I expect a header on this any second. Will baldy go for Tory leader now? He’s got con home and the membership onboard. He should be betting favourite shouldn’t he?
Let’s be blunt here. Straight after that election defeat, the Tories can do so much worse than rally around Wallace.
Under another leader they could go down to ideological places, distancing the party and brand from so much of the electorate left struggling to find the Tories in their niche private coves, the Tories could spend all the next parliamentary term looking factionally divided, and go into the late twenties election with an economic policy which falls apart within days of the campaign starting.
Under Wallace they could form a cabinet from across the wings and factions of the party, unite around traditional conservative policies, and concentrate on a solid economic offering going into the election.
At this moment Wallace has to be a price for leader to quickly get on before it tightens?
I do feel bad for him not getting the NATO job though. Officers of the Netherlands armed forces won’t be constantly acknowledging his presence so he won’t get those “Dutch Salutes” you keep banging on about.
The latest Blue Wall poll, Labour down Lib Dem’s up, is one of those Dutch Salutes I keep banging on about.
Even if the gap between Con to lab closes, that LLG 60% working in targeted way could produce horrendous bloodbath for Tories, and on PB we should be looking for signs of 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.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
Edit: and I suspect one reason that so many cars in the poorer parts of cities are ULEZ-compliant is because they have been bought on HP.
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.
The petrol nissan primeras built in Sunderland in the 90s could easily do 300-400k with just normal maintenance. I had one, as did loads of taxi drivers, a fantastic car
The industry used to build some brilliantly robust cars. Overly engineered, designed on principle to be reliable and long-lasting as a selling point vs Ford / Vauxhall / Rover.
Then the accountants took over. Why spend £1 on a part when you can spend 20p? It will fail, but a future owner has that cost not the manufacturer. A serious drop in both quality and reliability even on some bigger name supposedly premium brands like VW.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I'm surprised a 14 year old Hyundai is ULEZ compliant. My understanding was that petrol cars before 2014 and diesel cars before 2016 weren't (can't remember the exact dates, but it was around then). Certainly my 2009 petrol car wasn't compliant when I last checked. But I've just checked, and apparently now my 2009 petrol car IS compliant. So what isn't?
On running costs: the biggest running cost tends to be depreciation. Which is something you barely pay at all on old bangers. And 20 years ago, you might have had to be paying out regularly to fix things which go wrong on your old car. But cars made 20 years ago were made considerably better than those made 40 years ago. The only maintenance I need to pay for my 2009 petrol car is replacing parts - tyres, brake pads etc. Other than that it's been remarkably reliable.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I’ve just had to shell out a grand to keep my 2006 Alfa on the road 🙁
Did you need to shell out a grand last year? Yes some years were worse for costs than others, some years I didn't need repairs at all. Some I 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.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
Edit: and I suspect one reason that so many cars in the poorer parts of cities are ULEZ-compliant is because they have been bought on HP.
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" nonsense?
What depreciation? I recently spent £2k on a 14 year old car. There's little left to depreciate. No, the cost is if your clutch goes or gearbox or something major on the engine or you get structural rust through or the engine electronics gives up etc etc. All cars get to the point where they are no longer economical to repair. So they get scrapped - or saved by a hobbyist happy to pour time and cash into keeping them going as a leisure car.
You said "The older they get the more it costs to run daily".
Depreciation is a cost. Your £40k car costs a lot more to sit on the driveway than an old diesel costs to maintain for a year.
There aren't many 40k Teslas running round here in ex-mining villages, I can tell you.
Anyway, I think the ULEZ should be extended to Heathrow, so that all those who claim to be green by not running a car can't then jump on a flight to Timbuktu when they get bored.
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.
There’s Tesla taxis in the US with half a million miles on them, and I regularly come across Toyota hybrid taxis out here with 1m km on them in three years (2 drivers per car, around 1,000km per day, long and thin city connected by fast roads!).
What we haven’t yet seen, is a 15-year-old low-mileage EV, which is where the concerns lie. Most problems with old ICE cars are traced to plastic and rubber bits that have deteriorated - and computers!
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I'm surprised a 14 year old Hyundai is ULEZ compliant. My understanding was that petrol cars before 2014 and diesel cars before 2016 weren't (can't remember the exact dates, but it was around then). Certainly my 2009 petrol car wasn't compliant when I last checked. But I've just checked, and apparently now my 2009 petrol car IS compliant. So what isn't?
On running costs: the biggest running cost tends to be depreciation. Which is something you barely pay at all on old bangers. And 20 years ago, you might have had to be paying out regularly to fix things which go wrong on your old car. But cars made 20 years ago were made considerably better than those made 40 years ago. The only maintenance I need to pay for my 2009 petrol car is replacing parts - tyres, brake pads etc. Other than that it's been remarkably reliable.
Any petrol car from 2005 onwards should be ULEZ compliant. For diesels I think it's something like 2014? I had to replace my 2011 diesel when ULEZ was first introduced. It is mostly richer people with large diesel cars who are affected by this, so my sympathy for the whingers is limited.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I'm surprised a 14 year old Hyundai is ULEZ compliant. My understanding was that petrol cars before 2014 and diesel cars before 2016 weren't (can't remember the exact dates, but it was around then). Certainly my 2009 petrol car wasn't compliant when I last checked. But I've just checked, and apparently now my 2009 petrol car IS compliant. So what isn't?
From tfl;
Most petrol vehicles under 16 years old or diesel vehicles under 6 years old already meet the emissions standards.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
Yup. I'd be happy to sell my ULEZ-compliant 2008 Hyundai Getz, which I've hung on to for the kids to learn to drive, for £750 or thereabouts, and it's still got plenty of life left in it.
There are some people here who will likely read this and agree and to them I say that for the Goodwin's of the world, there is never a pure enough world, never a clean enough volk. If you are no longer useful for their project, they will too turn on you. Be an Ernst if you want, but you'll get the same ending.
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.
Beating one's breast because the world marched to different values in the past is some of the silliest thinking.
The AfD school of historical analysis? Whatever gets you through the day (and night).
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I'm surprised a 14 year old Hyundai is ULEZ compliant. My understanding was that petrol cars before 2014 and diesel cars before 2016 weren't (can't remember the exact dates, but it was around then). Certainly my 2009 petrol car wasn't compliant when I last checked. But I've just checked, and apparently now my 2009 petrol car IS compliant. So what isn't?
On running costs: the biggest running cost tends to be depreciation. Which is something you barely pay at all on old bangers. And 20 years ago, you might have had to be paying out regularly to fix things which go wrong on your old car. But cars made 20 years ago were made considerably better than those made 40 years ago. The only maintenance I need to pay for my 2009 petrol car is replacing parts - tyres, brake pads etc. Other than that it's been remarkably reliable.
We had a 2015 C-Max until last year which wasn't compliant (diesel, one of the last ones not to be - the compliant update came out that year, IIRC). Sold as we needed a bigger car, not for ULEZ - we'd be unlikely to have taken it down to that there London.
For petrol, you're going into classic car territory to find one non-compliant. And yes, designation on some cars has been updated, I think, including the 2001 Micra mentioned elsewhere (was Euro 3 as out before Euro 4, but did in fact meet Euro 4 levels which has now been recognised).
The problem only really applies to diesels, for them it's a bit of a crapshoot pre-mid 2010s or so by manufacture and model
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" nonsense?
What depreciation? I recently spent £2k on a 14 year old car. There's little left to depreciate. No, the cost is if your clutch goes or gearbox or something major on the engine or you get structural rust through or the engine electronics gives up etc etc. All cars get to the point where they are no longer economical to repair. So they get scrapped - or saved by a hobbyist happy to pour time and cash into keeping them going as a leisure car.
You said "The older they get the more it costs to run daily".
Depreciation is a cost. Your £40k car costs a lot more to sit on the driveway than an old diesel costs to maintain for a year.
There aren't many 40k Teslas running round here in ex-mining villages, I can tell you.
Anyway, I think the ULEZ should be extended to Heathrow, so that all those who claim to be green by not running a car can't then jump on a flight to Timbuktu when they get bored.
The ULEZ is not about reducing carbon emissions. That’s a completely different challenge.
It’s about reducing toxic tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates that cause significant mortality and morbidity in UK cities. Including asthma (especially in children) and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and cognitive decline.
Not sure people have paid much attention to what the ULEZ is actually about. It’s simply the latest in a long line of environmental regulations seeking to improve people’s quality of life since the 18th century, almost all of which were fiercely resisted when introduced and then soon accepted and celebrated afterwards.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
The Tories are just performatively up in arms about it because it’s being introduced by a Labour Mayor.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
So what, he is still a Scot even if he may have some extreme views on other matters his views on the monarchy are in line with what most Scots think.
Good on them for taking on the Republic crowd, I certainly enjoyed booing them and shouting 'God Save the King' with other monarchists every time they put up their pathetic placards when I went up to London to support the coronation
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" nonsense?
What depreciation? I recently spent £2k on a 14 year old car. There's little left to depreciate. No, the cost is if your clutch goes or gearbox or something major on the engine or you get structural rust through or the engine electronics gives up etc etc. All cars get to the point where they are no longer economical to repair. So they get scrapped - or saved by a hobbyist happy to pour time and cash into keeping them going as a leisure car.
You said "The older they get the more it costs to run daily".
Depreciation is a cost. Your £40k car costs a lot more to sit on the driveway than an old diesel costs to maintain for a year.
There aren't many 40k Teslas running round here in ex-mining villages, I can tell you.
Anyway, I think the ULEZ should be extended to Heathrow, so that all those who claim to be green by not running a car can't then jump on a flight to Timbuktu when they get bored.
The ULEZ is not about reducing carbon emissions. That’s a completely different challenge.
It’s about reducing toxic tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates that cause significant mortality and morbidity in UK cities. Including asthma (especially in children) and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and cognitive decline.
Not sure people have paid much attention to what the ULEZ is actually about. It’s simply the latest in a long line of environmental regulations seeking to improve people’s quality of life since the 18th century, almost all of which were fiercely resisted when introduced and then soon accepted and celebrated afterwards.
Yes, I understand that. Emissions of NOx from planes is pretty high though.
I'm all for cleaning up pollution. I live next to a busy road and I'd be delighted if all the worst particulate emitters were removed (although that would include the buses).
The idea that every car is already ULEZ compliant seems a bit daft though. Either we are trying to drive some people off the road or we aren't.
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!
The motors have undergone a fair amount of development since that model. Will be interesting to see.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
But, only for residents. I'd extend it to those needing to drive into the zone frequently for (list of reasons - work, caring for relative etc). But that would be outwith the GLA remit, I guess? Or maybe not...
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I'm surprised a 14 year old Hyundai is ULEZ compliant. My understanding was that petrol cars before 2014 and diesel cars before 2016 weren't (can't remember the exact dates, but it was around then). Certainly my 2009 petrol car wasn't compliant when I last checked. But I've just checked, and apparently now my 2009 petrol car IS compliant. So what isn't?
On running costs: the biggest running cost tends to be depreciation. Which is something you barely pay at all on old bangers. And 20 years ago, you might have had to be paying out regularly to fix things which go wrong on your old car. But cars made 20 years ago were made considerably better than those made 40 years ago. The only maintenance I need to pay for my 2009 petrol car is replacing parts - tyres, brake pads etc. Other than that it's been remarkably reliable.
We had a 2015 C-Max until last year which wasn't compliant (diesel, one of the last ones not to be - the compliant update came out that year, IIRC). Sold as we needed a bigger car, not for ULEZ - we'd be unlikely to have taken it down to that there London.
For petrol, you're going into classic car territory to find one non-compliant. And yes, designation on some cars has been updated, I think, including the 2001 Micra mentioned elsewhere (was Euro 3 as out before Euro 4, but did in fact meet Euro 4 levels which has now been recognised).
The problem only really applies to diesels, for them it's a bit of a crapshoot pre-mid 2010s or so by manufacture and model
People with middle aged diesel cars and vans are probably the slice of the population who do have genuine problems- the compliance window is fairly narrow there. And whilst there clearly should be flows of cars in and out of London, there's likely a bit of a financial hit on sale values. (After all, that "a replacement compliant car costs £x" thing doesn't factor in that the car being replaced has some value which should be netted off.)
Trouble is that middle aged diesel cars in urban and suburban environments are probably a mistake, because of the way they pollute the air, including in Zone 6. And at some point, the freedom to drive whatever you like wherever you like conflicts with the freedom to breathe.
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" nonsense?
What depreciation? I recently spent £2k on a 14 year old car. There's little left to depreciate. No, the cost is if your clutch goes or gearbox or something major on the engine or you get structural rust through or the engine electronics gives up etc etc. All cars get to the point where they are no longer economical to repair. So they get scrapped - or saved by a hobbyist happy to pour time and cash into keeping them going as a leisure car.
You said "The older they get the more it costs to run daily".
Depreciation is a cost. Your £40k car costs a lot more to sit on the driveway than an old diesel costs to maintain for a year.
There aren't many 40k Teslas running round here in ex-mining villages, I can tell you.
Anyway, I think the ULEZ should be extended to Heathrow, so that all those who claim to be green by not running a car can't then jump on a flight to Timbuktu when they get bored.
The ULEZ is not about reducing carbon emissions. That’s a completely different challenge.
It’s about reducing toxic tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates that cause significant mortality and morbidity in UK cities. Including asthma (especially in children) and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and cognitive decline.
Not sure people have paid much attention to what the ULEZ is actually about. It’s simply the latest in a long line of environmental regulations seeking to improve people’s quality of life since the 18th century, almost all of which were fiercely resisted when introduced and then soon accepted and celebrated afterwards.
Yes, I understand that. Emissions of NOx from planes is pretty high though.
I'm all for cleaning up pollution. I live next to a busy road and I'd be delighted if all the worst particulate emitters were removed (although that would include the buses).
The idea that every car is already ULEZ compliant seems a bit daft though. Either we are trying to drive some people off the road or we aren't.
Almost all petrol cars are compliant. A lot of diesels aren't, mostly larger cars driven by richer people. I used to drive one of these cars. These are the cars the measures are aimed at getting off the road.
So what, he is still a Scot even if he may have some extreme views on other matters his views on the monarchy are in line with what most Scots think.
Good on them for taking on the Republic crowd, I certainly enjoyed booing them every time they put up their pathetic placards when I went up to London to support the coronation
A good deal fewer pathetic placards for you to boo after the Filth had rounded up a number of the Repubic crowd pre-emptively. You should put in a complaint.
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?
Yebbut if your nan dies it's cos nothing in her body works any more. The Cons have a big infrastructure and base (not to mention still having thousands of other elected representatives outside of parliament) that will persist even if the parliamentary party is obliterated. The nan-death catastrophic scenario is less likely than a Liberal-esque decline.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
The "argument" is simplicity itself. The policy will force an expense upon people who can least afford it.
Applauded by those who can very much afford it and can't see what the problem is as they head out in their company Teslas.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
WBAC are interested in anything if the price is right - I have done some work for them assessing 911s (Yes, people will take a 180 grand Turbo S to WBAC.)
They are owned by BCA so they know with a high degree of certainty what they can get for any car at auction, they add their margin to that and there's your WBAC offer. It's often worth a drive by on a WBAC car park to see if anything interesting is in there as they hate holding inventory and will contemplate a cheeky offer. That's how I got my 335d.
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" nonsense?
What depreciation? I recently spent £2k on a 14 year old car. There's little left to depreciate. No, the cost is if your clutch goes or gearbox or something major on the engine or you get structural rust through or the engine electronics gives up etc etc. All cars get to the point where they are no longer economical to repair. So they get scrapped - or saved by a hobbyist happy to pour time and cash into keeping them going as a leisure car.
You said "The older they get the more it costs to run daily".
Depreciation is a cost. Your £40k car costs a lot more to sit on the driveway than an old diesel costs to maintain for a year.
There aren't many 40k Teslas running round here in ex-mining villages, I can tell you.
Anyway, I think the ULEZ should be extended to Heathrow, so that all those who claim to be green by not running a car can't then jump on a flight to Timbuktu when they get bored.
The ULEZ is not about reducing carbon emissions. That’s a completely different challenge.
It’s about reducing toxic tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates that cause significant mortality and morbidity in UK cities. Including asthma (especially in children) and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and cognitive decline.
Not sure people have paid much attention to what the ULEZ is actually about. It’s simply the latest in a long line of environmental regulations seeking to improve people’s quality of life since the 18th century, almost all of which were fiercely resisted when introduced and then soon accepted and celebrated afterwards.
Remember the poor nurses who had to get rid of their coal fires back in the fifties?
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
There is a scrappage scheme I believe.
I thought most scrappage schemes were a discount on a new car, not a second hand one.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
The "argument" is simplicity itself. The policy will force an expense upon people who can least afford it.
Applauded by those who can very much afford it and can't see what the problem is as they head out in their company Teslas.
I think we have disarmed that. "Where are people going to get £2,000 from" to pay in tax as their 2008 Micra isn't compliant?
They won't. Because it is.
You can sneer at me all you like. One of us is talking bollocks. And it demonstrably isn't me...
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
But, only for residents. I'd extend it to those needing to drive into the zone frequently for (list of reasons - work, caring for relative etc). But that would be outwith the GLA remit, I guess? Or maybe not...
Being told to sell their, say 2012 diesel which might have cost £15k (and they were being encouraged by the government to buy it, mind) for £2,000 sounds just like something the poor have had to suffer throughout the ages.
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.
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.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
There is a scrappage scheme I believe.
I thought most scrappage schemes were a discount on a new car, not a second hand one.
In Glasgow/Scotland I think the scrappage scheme for ULEZ only applies if the car is used for business purposes, I assume that won't apply to commuting to work.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
The left's material solution to capitalism this century was Venezuela, now at 7 million refugees and counting. Even a muppet like Goodwin can win that argument. It's like when people say they are "anti-fascist". Easy mode politics for dummies.
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.
They quote crazy low prices and then find specious reasons to cut those as well.
I had a diesel once even the insurers thought was worth £1500 (so real world was £2000) and they offered me £315 for it, sight unseen, which they noted ‘might be reduced’ if, say there was a slight blemish on the wing mirror housing.
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.
No you couldn't.
The ceiling for Nationalist Conservatism is 43% as Boris proved in 2019.
The ceiling for Orange Book pro free market and socially liberal Liberalism is just 8% as Clegg proved in 2015.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
There is a scrappage scheme I believe.
I thought most scrappage schemes were a discount on a new car, not a second hand one.
Not this one. It's a dollop of cash which doesn't even have to be spent on a car:
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
WBAC are interested in anything if the price is right - I have done some work for them assessing 911s (Yes, people will take a 180 grand Turbo S to WBAC.)
They are owned by BCA so they know with a high degree of certainty what they can get for any car at auction, they add their margin to that and there's your WBAC offer. It's often worth a drive by on a WBAC car park to see if anything interesting is in there as they hate holding inventory and will contemplate a cheeky offer. That's how I got my 335d.
Yep they really do BAC. And as you say they go straight to auction. Means there are lemons aplenty because all the car has to do is get to the WBAC yard and they'll buy it.
Then again if you are thinking of doing this (not you, obvs, but "one") then on the online form you must say it's perfect because they will go round the exterior with a magnifying glass and the slightest scratch will take off £400. Five scratches and you're already £2,000 down.
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.
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.
Are you ignoring depreciation in your "old car costs more to run" nonsense?
What depreciation? I recently spent £2k on a 14 year old car. There's little left to depreciate. No, the cost is if your clutch goes or gearbox or something major on the engine or you get structural rust through or the engine electronics gives up etc etc. All cars get to the point where they are no longer economical to repair. So they get scrapped - or saved by a hobbyist happy to pour time and cash into keeping them going as a leisure car.
You said "The older they get the more it costs to run daily".
Depreciation is a cost. Your £40k car costs a lot more to sit on the driveway than an old diesel costs to maintain for a year.
There aren't many 40k Teslas running round here in ex-mining villages, I can tell you.
Anyway, I think the ULEZ should be extended to Heathrow, so that all those who claim to be green by not running a car can't then jump on a flight to Timbuktu when they get bored.
The ULEZ is not about reducing carbon emissions. That’s a completely different challenge.
It’s about reducing toxic tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates that cause significant mortality and morbidity in UK cities. Including asthma (especially in children) and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and cognitive decline.
Not sure people have paid much attention to what the ULEZ is actually about. It’s simply the latest in a long line of environmental regulations seeking to improve people’s quality of life since the 18th century, almost all of which were fiercely resisted when introduced and then soon accepted and celebrated afterwards.
Yes, I understand that. Emissions of NOx from planes is pretty high though.
I'm all for cleaning up pollution. I live next to a busy road and I'd be delighted if all the worst particulate emitters were removed (although that would include the buses).
The idea that every car is already ULEZ compliant seems a bit daft though. Either we are trying to drive some people off the road or we aren't.
Indeed. We are simultaneously supposed to believe that virtually no cars are impacted and that these virtually non existant cars are causing a major problem.
As I said earlier I think this is a by product of the Brexit debate where winning the argument at all costs is all that matters.
A position that yes a small but significant number of people are impacted significantly, but it is still the right thing to do alongside as much mitigation as we can afford for those impacted becomes regarded as heresy by both sides when it is the rational path. Very sad and not a good indicator for the future of our politics.
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
Cameroonism is the last arguably functional period of conservative governance - which also allowed the Tories to make inroads with typically LD voters. Why do you think a Wet Tory party - socially liberal, economically conservative, willing to form close ties to Europe but not wanting to re enter - would not make some inroads?
You also seem to think that potential electoral victory is the only reason parties split - sometimes they split because of electoral defeat and the party that is left with the ruins doesn't agree on how to go forward. The Tories will be a different party after the next GE, I don't know who the most moderate MP will be, but if someone like Badenoch is the leader they will be a pretty extreme party. It will present the best opportunity any "wet" has ever had to go for a new party.
I also think if one of the parties split, the other will, because most of what holds the parties together at the moment is the animosity towards its rival. If the Labour party majority is unassailable for a few GEs, as is entirely possible under current polling, what is there to lose by starting a new political project with a long term aim? Go to the Tory money men that don't like the culture war stuff but do like Tory economics, and you have a good funding base. If the Corbynite MPs get the shaft, they could more openly join with the current union upswing and maybe make a play for some union funding from the unions more SKS sceptical, especially if SKS governs feeling he doesn't need union support and continues his talk about his "fiscal rules" that won't allow public sector increases. I can see Labour getting a stonking majority with most of it's actual members not being that happy about voting for them - a recipe for dissatisfaction with governance and willingness to join a new political party / project.
Again, I accept I could be and am possibly likely wrong. But I think the idea that because FPTP makes parties splitting unlikely and therefore it won't happen doesn't take into account that we've always had FPTP and it has happened in the past anyway, because parties are coalitions of voters with differing interests and if those interests are upheld, or change, and the parties don't change or move away from those interests too much, new parties emerge to meet those interests and attempt to form new coalitions.
No party has replaced the Tories or Labour under FPTP since universal suffrage for a reason.
Yet with PR the Brexit Party of Farage beat the wet May Tories in 2019 in the European elections and the LDs beat the May Tories and Labour and even the Greens beat the Tories 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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
The "argument" is simplicity itself. The policy will force an expense upon people who can least afford it.
Applauded by those who can very much afford it and can't see what the problem is as they head out in their company Teslas.
I think we have disarmed that. "Where are people going to get £2,000 from" to pay in tax as their 2008 Micra isn't compliant?
They won't. Because it is.
You can sneer at me all you like. One of us is talking bollocks. And it demonstrably isn't me...
My brother in law drives diesel transits which are not compliant. He uses them to make deliveries of building materials.
He cannot afford a new one, as they are very expensive, but he is mechanically minded and dug his own pit so keeps a couple he bought second hand going himself.
If you admit that you want him off the road and doing a different job, then fine, but pretending that this will have a no effect on people like him won't wash.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
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.
Hang on, Glasgow has an affluent area?
Why has this been kept a secret?
Or is it a typo and you meant effluent.
Of course it does, Glasgow has numerous outlets for vulgar, overpriced footwear, the absolute definition of affluent as any fule kno.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
Not really true, the new elite includes LD voting lawyers living in the home counties in homes they own or Labour voter public sector executives on 6 figure salaries living in north London or Cambridge.
The white working class however is very much not the new elite
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.
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?
Yebbut if your nan dies it's cos nothing in her body works any more. The Cons have a big infrastructure and base (not to mention still having thousands of other elected representatives outside of parliament) that will persist even if the parliamentary party is obliterated. The nan-death catastrophic scenario is less likely than a Liberal-esque decline.
If the last few local elections are anything to go by the local Tories are in as much, if not greater, trouble than the Tory MPs. Again, if the Tories get <100 MPs - a non impossibility - who will be the MPs left and will they be able to run a party of opposition, keep that infrastructure held together, keep those activists? (It's also important to note that many Tory activists and voters are older, and one issue with that is that older people tend to die more often). The party, as it is, is clearly in decline. That it took Truss to show that is a testament to all the things you say will keep it alive - but those things can keep the corpse imitating life for only so long. Again, the scenario that the Tories are looking at at the next GE seems to me like a perfect opportunity for them to die and potentially split. If you are irrelevant because Labour have a stonking majority, then splitting doesn't come with stakes. The Tory coalition of wets and fruitcakes has been the whole reason Tories have been unable to govern post the LD-Con coalition. One of those will win the heart of the party, and it looks like that will be the fruitcakes, and I don't imagine the wets will just go away - they have an ideology and they believe in it.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
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.
Hang on, Glasgow has an affluent area?
Why has this been kept a secret?
Or is it a typo and you meant effluent.
I was thinking of you this morning because I saw a sign ‘pain free life transforming dentistry.’
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.
Hang on, Glasgow has an affluent area?
Why has this been kept a secret?
Or is it a typo and you meant effluent.
I was thinking of you this morning because I saw a sign ‘pain free life transforming dentistry.’
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.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
Not really true, the new elite includes LD voting lawyers living in the home counties in homes they own or Labour voter public sector executives on 6 figure salaries living in north London.
The white working class however is very much not the new elite
The elite sit in palaces and have audiences with the PM. But you would lick their boots clean if they told you to.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
Not really true, the new elite includes LD voting lawyers living in the home counties in homes they own or Labour voter public sector executives on 6 figure salaries living in north London or Cambridge.
The white working class however is very much not the new elite
"the elite" = "people I don't like" as your post demonstrates to perfection.
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.
Hang on, Glasgow has an affluent area?
Why has this been kept a secret?
Or is it a typo and you meant effluent.
I was thinking of you this morning because I saw a sign ‘pain free life transforming dentistry.’
I was wondering where you would put the comma…
After life.
Yes, I can see how that would be dead serious to you.
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.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
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.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
What is the argument?
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
There is an issue for diesels, although it should be possible to sell the diesel and buy an, if neccessary, older comparable petrol for similar money. Unless the bottom falls out of non-compliant diesel prices in the locality, which is possible (but WBAC etc should still be interested for those for national resale, unless the bottom falls out of prices for non-compliant diesels nationally).
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
But, only for residents. I'd extend it to those needing to drive into the zone frequently for (list of reasons - work, caring for relative etc). But that would be outwith the GLA remit, I guess? Or maybe not...
Being told to sell their, say 2012 diesel which might have cost £15k (and they were being encouraged by the government to buy it, mind) for £2,000 sounds just like something the poor have had to suffer throughout the ages.
What a load of cock! They can always supplement their shortfall by signing up to "mydieselclaim.com". Other ambulance chasing lawyers are available.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
Look on Autotrader.
Within 30 miles of me, 83749 cars of which 232 under a grand. Thats 0.2% of which plenty wont be ULEZ compliant and a decent chunk of the rest won't pass their next MOT.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
Not really true, the new elite includes LD voting lawyers living in the home counties in homes they own or Labour voter public sector executives on 6 figure salaries living in north London or Cambridge.
The white working class however is very much not the new elite
"the elite" = "people I don't like" as your post demonstrates to perfection.
Who has been in charge of the UK for mostd of the time since 1688?
Ad why does HYUFD think it so important to be, in his words, "posh"?
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.
They quote crazy low prices and then find specious reasons to cut those as well.
I had a diesel once even the insurers thought was worth £1500 (so real world was £2000) and they offered me £315 for it, sight unseen, which they noted ‘might be reduced’ if, say there was a slight blemish on the wing mirror housing.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
At the moment the western right from Trump to Meloni to Le Pen or even Dutton and Braverman and Boris is increasingly rightwing and nationalist on the culture wars but if anything almost centrist on economics and not close to the big global corporations.
Even where the centre right is still ahead of the populist right, in Spain or Germany or Greece or Sweden or New Zealand or Canada they are often having to make deals with the populist right to win eg with Vox in Spain or the Sweden Democrats in Sweden, maybe even with the AfD in Germany
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
Look on Autotrader.
Within 30 miles of me, 83749 cars of which 232 under a grand. Thats 0.2% of which plenty wont be ULEZ compliant and a decent chunk of the rest won't pass their next MOT.
Where do you live? I found plenty ulez compliant under a grand near me. So what if its only 0.2% of cars? You only need one car.
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.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I'm surprised a 14 year old Hyundai is ULEZ compliant. My understanding was that petrol cars before 2014 and diesel cars before 2016 weren't (can't remember the exact dates, but it was around then). Certainly my 2009 petrol car wasn't compliant when I last checked. But I've just checked, and apparently now my 2009 petrol car IS compliant. So what isn't?
On running costs: the biggest running cost tends to be depreciation. Which is something you barely pay at all on old bangers. And 20 years ago, you might have had to be paying out regularly to fix things which go wrong on your old car. But cars made 20 years ago were made considerably better than those made 40 years ago. The only maintenance I need to pay for my 2009 petrol car is replacing parts - tyres, brake pads etc. Other than that it's been remarkably reliable.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
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.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
It is representing poor people who mostly don't drive in London and whose lives are blighted and sometimes cut short by dirty air. It's really not that complicated.
Comments
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-labour-councillor-quits-just-26917734
I wouldn't be surprised if some voters were unhappy about having to vote again, and perhaps some were on the ex-councillor's side of whatever Labour factional split this was.
You also seem to think that potential electoral victory is the only reason parties split - sometimes they split because of electoral defeat and the party that is left with the ruins doesn't agree on how to go forward. The Tories will be a different party after the next GE, I don't know who the most moderate MP will be, but if someone like Badenoch is the leader they will be a pretty extreme party. It will present the best opportunity any "wet" has ever had to go for a new party.
I also think if one of the parties split, the other will, because most of what holds the parties together at the moment is the animosity towards its rival. If the Labour party majority is unassailable for a few GEs, as is entirely possible under current polling, what is there to lose by starting a new political project with a long term aim? Go to the Tory money men that don't like the culture war stuff but do like Tory economics, and you have a good funding base. If the Corbynite MPs get the shaft, they could more openly join with the current union upswing and maybe make a play for some union funding from the unions more SKS sceptical, especially if SKS governs feeling he doesn't need union support and continues his talk about his "fiscal rules" that won't allow public sector increases. I can see Labour getting a stonking majority with most of it's actual members not being that happy about voting for them - a recipe for dissatisfaction with governance and willingness to join a new political party / project.
Again, I accept I could be and am possibly likely wrong. But I think the idea that because FPTP makes parties splitting unlikely and therefore it won't happen doesn't take into account that we've always had FPTP and it has happened in the past anyway, because parties are coalitions of voters with differing interests and if those interests are upheld, or change, and the parties don't change or move away from those interests too much, new parties emerge to meet those interests and attempt to form new coalitions.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
It was ULEZ compliant BTW.
Even if the gap between Con to lab closes, that LLG 60% working in targeted way could produce horrendous bloodbath for Tories, and on PB we should be looking for signs of that. 🚦
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
Edit: and I suspect one reason that so many cars in the poorer parts of cities are ULEZ-compliant is because they have been bought on HP.
Then the accountants took over. Why spend £1 on a part when you can spend 20p? It will fail, but a future owner has that cost not the manufacturer. A serious drop in both quality and reliability even on some bigger name supposedly premium brands like VW.
On running costs: the biggest running cost tends to be depreciation. Which is something you barely pay at all on old bangers.
And 20 years ago, you might have had to be paying out regularly to fix things which go wrong on your old car. But cars made 20 years ago were made considerably better than those made 40 years ago. The only maintenance I need to pay for my 2009 petrol car is replacing parts - tyres, brake pads etc. Other than that it's been remarkably reliable.
Depreciation is a cost. Your £40k car costs a lot more to sit on the driveway than an old diesel costs to maintain for a year.
There aren't many 40k Teslas running round here in ex-mining villages, I can tell you.
Anyway, I think the ULEZ should be extended to Heathrow, so that all those who claim to be green by not running a car can't then jump on a flight to Timbuktu when they get bored.
What we haven’t yet seen, is a 15-year-old low-mileage EV, which is where the concerns lie. Most problems with old ICE cars are traced to plastic and rubber bits that have deteriorated - and computers!
2008 Micra. Compliant: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202305187507459
2002 Micra. Compliant: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202307049277142
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Most petrol vehicles under 16 years old or diesel vehicles under 6 years old already meet the emissions standards.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ways-to-meet-the-standard
https://mattgoodwin.substack.com/p/ep-1-the-revolution-is-failing?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=858965&post_id=132957834&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPNZTtoQBmA
Conservative voices are being silenced
For petrol, you're going into classic car territory to find one non-compliant. And yes, designation on some cars has been updated, I think, including the 2001 Micra mentioned elsewhere (was Euro 3 as out before Euro 4, but did in fact meet Euro 4 levels which has now been recognised).
The problem only really applies to diesels, for them it's a bit of a crapshoot pre-mid 2010s or so by manufacture and model
So far we have had poor nurses will have to pay £2,000 a year in tax because their 2008 Micra isn't ULEZ compliant.
Except that most cars that are reliable/cost effective enough to use daily *are* compliant.
You asked "Where are people going to get £2,000 from?" - the £2,000 they will need to pay in tax to drive their 2008 Micra to work I assume?
They won't. Their car is almost certainly ULEZ compliant. The few genuine dailies that aren't will need to be chopped in soonish anyway because they're 20 years old and the cost of keeping them usable as a daily outstrips the cost of chopping them in. Which is why so very few people still have 20 year old daily drivers whether they are in the bottom economic decile or not.
Do have to laugh though. Tories claiming to be genuinely concerned about the lot of the poorest! Have no interest in their terrible wages or mega costs of food and bills and housing. But threaten their* cars and lets object!
*of course it isn't the poor's cars this catches. Its the weekend cars owned by people who aren't in that bottom decile. Which is why the Tories are up in arms about it.
It’s about reducing toxic tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates that cause significant mortality and morbidity in UK cities. Including asthma (especially in children) and other respiratory conditions, heart disease, and cognitive decline.
Not sure people have paid much attention to what the ULEZ is actually about. It’s simply the latest in a long line of environmental regulations seeking to improve people’s quality of life since the 18th century, almost all of which were fiercely resisted when introduced and then soon accepted and celebrated afterwards.
But, I'd still be looking at some targetted support for poorer non-compliant diesel owners. As noted, there really won't be that many and it would kill the issue.
Good on them for taking on the Republic crowd, I certainly enjoyed booing them and shouting 'God Save the King' with other monarchists every time they put up their pathetic placards when I went up to London to support the coronation
He is so wrong he has to eat his own books on live TV.
I'm all for cleaning up pollution. I live next to a busy road and I'd be delighted if all the worst particulate emitters were removed (although that would include the buses).
The idea that every car is already ULEZ compliant seems a bit daft though. Either we are trying to drive some people off the road or we aren't.
But, only for residents. I'd extend it to those needing to drive into the zone frequently for (list of reasons - work, caring for relative etc). But that would be outwith the GLA remit, I guess? Or maybe not...
Trouble is that middle aged diesel cars in urban and suburban environments are probably a mistake, because of the way they pollute the air, including in Zone 6. And at some point, the freedom to drive whatever you like wherever you like conflicts with the freedom to breathe.
Applauded by those who can very much afford it and can't see what the problem is as they head out in their company Teslas.
They are owned by BCA so they know with a high degree of certainty what they can get for any car at auction, they add their margin to that and there's your WBAC offer. It's often worth a drive by on a WBAC car park to see if anything interesting is in there as they hate holding inventory and will contemplate a cheeky offer. That's how I got my 335d.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
They won't. Because it is.
You can sneer at me all you like. One of us is talking bollocks. And it demonstrably isn't me...
https://thedriven.io/2021/05/27/electric-vehicle-s-curve-puts-global-uptake-in-line-with-paris-goals/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57253947
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
I had a diesel once even the insurers thought was worth £1500 (so real world was £2000) and they offered me £315 for it, sight unseen, which they noted ‘might be reduced’ if, say there was a slight blemish on the wing mirror housing.
The ceiling for Nationalist Conservatism is 43% as Boris proved in 2019.
The ceiling for Orange Book pro free market and socially liberal Liberalism is just 8% as Clegg proved in 2015.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes
Then again if you are thinking of doing this (not you, obvs, but "one") then on the online form you must say it's perfect because they will go round the exterior with a magnifying glass and the slightest scratch will take off £400. Five scratches and you're already £2,000 down.
Why has this been kept a secret?
Or is it a typo and you meant effluent.
As I said earlier I think this is a by product of the Brexit debate where winning the argument at all costs is all that matters.
A position that yes a small but significant number of people are impacted significantly, but it is still the right thing to do alongside as much mitigation as we can afford for those impacted becomes regarded as heresy by both sides when it is the rational path. Very sad and not a good indicator for the future of our politics.
Yet with PR the Brexit Party of Farage beat the wet May Tories in 2019 in the European elections and the LDs beat the May Tories and Labour and even the Greens beat the Tories too
He cannot afford a new one, as they are very expensive, but he is mechanically minded and dug his own pit so keeps a couple he bought second hand going himself.
If you admit that you want him off the road and doing a different job, then fine, but pretending that this will have a no effect on people like him won't wash.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
The white working class however is very much not the new elite
I was wondering where you would put the comma…
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
Ad why does HYUFD think it so important to be, in his words, "posh"?
Ollie Pope has been ruled out of the series but England have opted against replacing him with Dan Lawrence, the spare batter in their squad.
Instead, Harry Brook moves up to number three with all-rounders Woakes and Moeen added to bolster the lower order.
Wood joins Woakes, Stuart Broad and Ollie Robinson in the pace attack with Josh Tongue and James Anderson rested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66106858
Even where the centre right is still ahead of the populist right, in Spain or Germany or Greece or Sweden or New Zealand or Canada they are often having to make deals with the populist right to win eg with Vox in Spain or the Sweden Democrats in Sweden, maybe even with the AfD in Germany
Enshittification
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1676516793861435394/photo/1
On a forced choice it would be the former wiped out under FPTP not the latter. Only with PR could wet Tories alone win MPs