Lab 16,456 Con 12,295 Green 1,838 Yorkshire Party 1,503 Reform UK 1,332 LD 1,188 SDP 314
Total 35,886
BJO please explain?
Keir Mather looks about 12! Also Nick Palmer standing as an independent, and not sure what the point of the Climate party is? Sounds like a bit of a vanity project to me.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Lab 16,456 Con 12,295 Green 1,838 Yorkshire Party 1,503 Reform UK 1,332 LD 1,188 SDP 314
Total 35,886
BJO please explain?
Keir Mather looks about 12! Also Nick Palmer standing as an independent, and not sure what the point of the Climate party is? Sounds like a bit of a vanity project to me.
David Herdson, and he alone, was the difference between The Yorkshire Party getting similar votes to the SDP and the 1.5k he actually got, and he nearly pipped the Greens to come third.
That's pretty impressive. He should be very proud.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Not to mention this "classic Labour" ulez was introduced by the Conservative Mayor of London, one Boris Johnson. Yes, most vehicles are not affected and automatic payment can be set up for those that are (mainly diesel cars of middle age). It is likely that if this by-election had been held, say, six months after the ulez expansion, it would not have been an issue.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Not to mention this "classic Labour" ulez was introduced by the Conservative Mayor of London, one Boris Johnson. Yes, most vehicles are not affected and automatic payment can be set up for those that are (mainly diesel cars of middle age). It is likely that if this by-election had been held, say, six months after the ulez expansion, it would not have been an issue.
The difference of course being that Boris Johnson's introduction of it presumably wasn't accompanied by fanfare by his supporters about how much they hate private transportation etc
Polluter pays for externalities is a fine Conservative/free market principle.
We hate cars, why do you drive the stupid things, get onto public transportation instead is not.
Khan is introducing the former, but masking it as the latter. Its a sheep in wolf's clothing. So yes, people get alarmed and object.
Lab 16,456 Con 12,295 Green 1,838 Yorkshire Party 1,503 Reform UK 1,332 LD 1,188 SDP 314
Total 35,886
BJO please explain?
Keir Mather looks about 12! Also Nick Palmer standing as an independent, and not sure what the point of the Climate party is? Sounds like a bit of a vanity project to me.
David Herdson, and he alone, was the difference between The Yorkshire Party getting similar votes to the SDP and the 1.5k he actually got, and he nearly pipped the Greens to come third.
That's pretty impressive. He should be very proud.
And when you consider he did all of that without even standing, it's even more impressive.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
It is about "anti-car" generally as much as ULEZ specifically, combined with the middle not being listened to, whether at Westminster or at the Mayors office.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
Lab 16,456 Con 12,295 Green 1,838 Yorkshire Party 1,503 Reform UK 1,332 LD 1,188 SDP 314
Total 35,886
BJO please explain?
Keir Mather looks about 12! Also Nick Palmer standing as an independent, and not sure what the point of the Climate party is? Sounds like a bit of a vanity project to me.
David Herdson, and he alone, was the difference between The Yorkshire Party getting similar votes to the SDP and the 1.5k he actually got, and he nearly pipped the Greens to come third.
That's pretty impressive. He should be very proud.
And when you consider he did all of that without even standing, it's even more impressive.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
It is about "anti-car" generally as much as ULEZ specifically, combined with the middle not being listened to, whether at Westminster or at the Mayors office.
The vibe is very important.
A lot of policymakers are Mets who haven't a bloody clue what it's like living outside cosmopolitan city centres, and don't much care either.
Much of the art of politics, as in life, is simply respect.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
It is around 9 in 10 vehicles that are exempt - I don't think there is much dispute about that from either side. Presentationally one side quotes vehicles in the expanded zone per day (150-200k) and the other quotes vehicles that go into the zone over a year (750-800k). Both seem perfectly plausible to me.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
My suspicion is most of the people who will have to pay are those with older diesel cars driving into outer London from the Home Counties. Locals are more likely to have petrol cars if they do not drive long distances, and of course drivers living in the new zone are more likely to replace their cars if needed.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
It is around 9 in 10 vehicles that are exempt - I don't think there is much dispute about that from either side. Presentationally one side quotes vehicles in the expanded zone per day (150-200k) and the other quotes vehicles that go into the zone over a year (750-800k). Both seem perfectly plausible to me.
But, everyone probably knows someone who's been hit and hit hard by it, and suspects they could be next because anti-car prejudice.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
It is around 9 in 10 vehicles that are exempt - I don't think there is much dispute about that from either side. Presentationally one side quotes vehicles in the expanded zone per day (150-200k) and the other quotes vehicles that go into the zone over a year (750-800k). Both seem perfectly plausible to me.
But, everyone probably knows someone who's been hit and hit hard by it, and suspects they could be next because anti-car prejudice.
Not so much, which is why opposition peaks beforehand, then falls back as people realise they are unaffected and it was a lot of fuss about very little.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
It is around 9 in 10 vehicles that are exempt - I don't think there is much dispute about that from either side. Presentationally one side quotes vehicles in the expanded zone per day (150-200k) and the other quotes vehicles that go into the zone over a year (750-800k). Both seem perfectly plausible to me.
But, everyone probably knows someone who's been hit and hit hard by it, and suspects they could be next because anti-car prejudice.
Not so much, which is why opposition peaks beforehand, then falls back as people realise they are unaffected and it was a lot of fuss about very little.
I disagree, the congestion charge still isn't very popular and people suspect - rightly, IMHO - that this is part of a creeping agenda by Sadiq Khan and his advisors.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
It is around 9 in 10 vehicles that are exempt - I don't think there is much dispute about that from either side. Presentationally one side quotes vehicles in the expanded zone per day (150-200k) and the other quotes vehicles that go into the zone over a year (750-800k). Both seem perfectly plausible to me.
But, everyone probably knows someone who's been hit and hit hard by it, and suspects they could be next because anti-car prejudice.
Not so much, which is why opposition peaks beforehand, then falls back as people realise they are unaffected and it was a lot of fuss about very little.
Its true in many walks of life though, if someone projects they want to go further on something but are doing something "moderate" then opponents will rally against it not just because they oppose the action currently being taken, but to say no to further action too. Reject this now, to prevent not just this but even worse down the line.
Its the slippery slope concept and its used in politics all the time.
EG I would have been perfectly content with Alternative Vote as an electoral system, it works great in Australia and its got the advantages of First Past the Post and not got the disadvantages of PR. But the proponents of the Yes side in the referendum were making arguments in favour of PR, not in favour of AV. So I voted no to AV, not because I wanted to avoid AV, but because I wanted to avoid PR, and that a yes to voting reform would have led to AV becoming something far worse and far more sinister like STV down the line.
I rather suspect ULEZ is the right policy, but there is/was something ostrich like about the response to complaints about it.
Similar to LTNs which are popular with most but definitely increase traffic on boundary roads and are hated by a sizeable minority.
ULEZ is unpopular because it hits everyday people with an unnecessary tax for transport they have to use - so it pisses them off.
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
Having said that, it seems the ULEZ does only target the dirtiest and worst offenders? I had a look and my thirteen year old petrol car would be ULEZ-compliant if I lived in London.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Yes, quite possibly. That type of view is very common in the public sector, particularly by Mets who are central London based.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
Most commercial vehicles are exempt. Most cars are exempt.
Most is a weasel-word.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
It is around 9 in 10 vehicles that are exempt - I don't think there is much dispute about that from either side. Presentationally one side quotes vehicles in the expanded zone per day (150-200k) and the other quotes vehicles that go into the zone over a year (750-800k). Both seem perfectly plausible to me.
But, everyone probably knows someone who's been hit and hit hard by it, and suspects they could be next because anti-car prejudice.
Not so much, which is why opposition peaks beforehand, then falls back as people realise they are unaffected and it was a lot of fuss about very little.
This is part of the not listened to....quite simple adjustments to the scheme would have won broader support, and made it more progressive, but no one in politics is interested in compromise anymore, those who believe in co-operation and consensus get driven out to the fringes at best.
Also, I think the Liberal Democrats will comfortably hold Somerton and Frome at the GE now they've got it.
Local politics vibe and demographic change: Frome is becoming enough of an alternative area to give them a solid base there.
I agree in theory, although the seat is being split into two rather different constituencies, one which is probably better for the LDs than S&F and one slightly worse.
Also, I think the Liberal Democrats will comfortably hold Somerton and Frome at the GE now they've got it.
Local politics vibe and demographic change: Frome is becoming enough of an alternative area to give them a solid base there.
Just catching up with goings on before an early start at work. Did notice that the Labour vote there seems to have been almost completely wiped out by tactical switching, but the Green share doubled.
The sad thing is that Starmer will no doubt take from this that Labour needs to drop anything green from its manifesto. Probably promise to reopen a few coal mines while they’re at it.
Also, I think the Liberal Democrats will comfortably hold Somerton and Frome at the GE now they've got it.
Local politics vibe and demographic change: Frome is becoming enough of an alternative area to give them a solid base there.
Just catching up with goings on before an early start at work. Did notice that the Labour vote there seems to have been almost completely wiped out by tactical switching, but the Green share doubled.
Labour getting beaten by Reform UK in that seat is perhaps just a touch embarrassing.
The sad thing is that Starmer will no doubt take from this that Labour needs to drop anything green from its manifesto. Probably promise to reopen a few coal mines while they’re at it.
If it gets them to think more clearly about building a green consensus that the squeezed middle can afford that would be a very good thing for the green agenda long term.
Why was there no scrappage scheme for people not claiming benefits? Why was the expanded scheme 24 hours a day when 7-7 would have moved traffic flow away from peak times and thereby reduced the pollution from congestion whilst also mitigating costs on drivers and businesses?
Also, I think the Liberal Democrats will comfortably hold Somerton and Frome at the GE now they've got it.
Local politics vibe and demographic change: Frome is becoming enough of an alternative area to give them a solid base there.
Just catching up with goings on before an early start at work. Did notice that the Labour vote there seems to have been almost completely wiped out by tactical switching, but the Green share doubled.
Labour getting beaten by Reform UK in that seat is perhaps just a touch embarrassing.
I don't think Starmer will be bothered by that at all - quite the reverse. After all, it looks very much as if the Lib Dems were likewise wiped out by tactical switching in the opposite direction in the other two seats. Should the existing red and yellow voter bases be willing to migrate en masse to the other party to help remove the local Tory come a general election, then it stands to reason that this will maximise both sides' voter efficiency and they can decimate the Conservatives between them - with Labour inevitably picking up far more seats where the movement is in their favour than will be captured by the Liberal Democrats.
The only small fly in the ointment is that the Green vote increased everywhere, which might cost Labour some marginals - though if Tory seats with five figure majorities end up as marginals after the next election then that still won't hurt them very much.
Labour won't care about Uxbridge either: local issues won't shield many Tories at a GE, in the same way as the incumbency bonus was of precious little value to the Lib Dems in 2015. I try not to attribute undue relevance to the outcomes of by-elections, but even so they have had a very good night indeed.
That is a huge win for Labour in Selby and Ainsty. It’s a Tony Blair style result and suggests Labour could win big at the next General Election.
And I actually think Starmer will be quietly pleased with the Uxbridge result. He can tell his party “see, look what happens when you piss off the voters.”
The sad thing is that Starmer will no doubt take from this that Labour needs to drop anything green from its manifesto. Probably promise to reopen a few coal mines while they’re at it.
If it gets them to think more clearly about building a green consensus that the squeezed middle can afford that would be a very good thing for the green agenda long term.
Why was there no scrappage scheme for people not claiming benefits? Why was the expanded scheme 24 hours a day when 7-7 would have moved traffic flow away from peak times and thereby reduced the pollution from congestion whilst also mitigating costs on drivers and businesses?
The scrappage scheme was limited because the government declined to fund a more generous one. How much difference that makes in practice, I'm not sure.
Comments
Con 12,295
Green 1,838
Yorkshire Party 1,503
Reform UK 1,332
LD 1,188
SDP 314
Total 35,886
Keir Mather looks about 12! Also Nick Palmer standing as an independent, and not sure what the point of the Climate party is? Sounds like a bit of a vanity project to me.
(sorry, fell asleep between 2 and 4
Of course people favour low emissions. But they'd far rather the government help regulate and subsidie new vehicles to be cleaner, target only the dirtiest and worst offenders, and help them make a positive choice to switch.
This is classic Labour 'we know what's best for you' stuff, which is precisely what we'll get from them in national government.
I think energy is a bit trickier.
There must be a fair few early 50-something left-wing parents who were very keen on this around the early noughties.
From the name ULEZ, and from the way both its proponents and its opponents speak you'd think it would mean charges for anyone driving a non-electric or at least non-hybrid car.
I think part of the problem is that the loudest ULEZ advocates are people who patently hate private transportation, so what they're projecting is what gets objected to, rather than the policy that actually exists.
Only exceeded by Dudley West in 1994 at 29%. (Incidentally the first by-election under Blair's leadership).
That's pretty impressive. He should be very proud.
Rail will be creeping nationalisation as franchises expire I think, and probably odds on.
They don't point to a total wipeout and, even the defeat is terrible, they also signpost how a recovery could be quickly rallied.
Biggest risk is the Tories get totally obsessed and consumed by infighting in opposition, particularly by Brexit purity, as the world moves on.
That said on the ULEZ the charge is stonking if you don't comply at £12.50 per day (£62.50 a week, if you just have a job to do) and doesn't discriminate at all.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone
Check your own car: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/
Polluter pays for externalities is a fine Conservative/free market principle.
We hate cars, why do you drive the stupid things, get onto public transportation instead is not.
Khan is introducing the former, but masking it as the latter. Its a sheep in wolf's clothing. So yes, people get alarmed and object.
If 51% of cars are exempt, that doesn't help you much if you're in the 49% who are not.
If 95% of cars are exempt, then that's a completely different matter.
The truth is somewhere inbetween, but who knows where since nobody seems to want to debate this in a grown up manner on either side.
A lot of policymakers are Mets who haven't a bloody clue what it's like living outside cosmopolitan city centres, and don't much care either.
Much of the art of politics, as in life, is simply respect.
Local politics vibe and demographic change: Frome is becoming enough of an alternative area to give them a solid base there.
Its the slippery slope concept and its used in politics all the time.
EG I would have been perfectly content with Alternative Vote as an electoral system, it works great in Australia and its got the advantages of First Past the Post and not got the disadvantages of PR. But the proponents of the Yes side in the referendum were making arguments in favour of PR, not in favour of AV. So I voted no to AV, not because I wanted to avoid AV, but because I wanted to avoid PR, and that a yes to voting reform would have led to AV becoming something far worse and far more sinister like STV down the line.
Why was there no scrappage scheme for people not claiming benefits? Why was the expanded scheme 24 hours a day when 7-7 would have moved traffic flow away from peak times and thereby reduced the pollution from congestion whilst also mitigating costs on drivers and businesses?
The only small fly in the ointment is that the Green vote increased everywhere, which might cost Labour some marginals - though if Tory seats with five figure majorities end up as marginals after the next election then that still won't hurt them very much.
Labour won't care about Uxbridge either: local issues won't shield many Tories at a GE, in the same way as the incumbency bonus was of precious little value to the Lib Dems in 2015. I try not to attribute undue relevance to the outcomes of by-elections, but even so they have had a very good night indeed.
And I actually think Starmer will be quietly pleased with the Uxbridge result. He can tell his party “see, look what happens when you piss off the voters.”