This new Sunak plan: "Divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights". What could they be? I have to assume culture war.
CRIME: Braverman worked very hard to secure the pro-golliwog vote. Perhaps they abolish most of the protections against racism sexism homophobia etc. "Say what you think with the Tories". And assuming we have enough police officers to catch criminals (and thanks to the Tories we don't), perhaps bring in "community punishment" where local scrotes are allowed to kick the shit out of other local scrotes.
MIGRANT BOATS: So far this policy has been a disaster. Record numbers on small boats which we can only just catch on arrival, nowhere to store migrants without vast cost, no way to deport to foreign as Rwanda won't take them and its screamingly illegal. The navy refuses to do tow backs as they will sink boats and drown migrants. Perhaps create RSBI - the Royal Stop the Boats Institutes. Where tattooed gentlemen volunteer to man the anti-lifeboat which drags the migrant boat to the bottom. Live on the Nigel Farage show on GBeebies.
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: As with the proposal to simply abolish namby pamby "rights" for people who don't like to be sexually assaulted, simply abolish trans rights. Make it a legal definition that someone with a penis is a man, make use of the wrong toilet punishable by jail time. And perhaps a nice series of "documentaries" on GBeebies where they describe trannies in derogatory terms and highlight cases where they have been deviant.
Mmmmm. That will do it. Conservatism at its finest.
There is a weird and sudden shortage of straw.
Naah, I don't think burning a Wicker Man will Stop The Boats.
What I write was satire. But I go back to what is being reported. Culture Wars-based "divisive" policies on crime, migrants and trans right.
I expect they will be trying to create wedge issues to get underneath this Labour lead. So being deliberately divisive will be to dog-whistle "common sense" (as Big_G puts it) proposals to their remaining voter base.
Going off how often the hard right complain that they have been silenced, I can see some kind of "its not racist [to be racist]" say what you think message. Especially when it comes to refugees.
We had a wave of racism following the Brexit vote, if there are votes in it they will do it. Hence Braverman putting it out that she had censured Essicksinnit police for going after Golliwogs.
I know you don't like it. Doesn't mean they aren't doing it though. And they're doing it in your name...
I had visions of the white(ish) cliffs of Dover lined with burning straw men.
I really don't get this desire to see the enemy as the worst part of themselves just so you can hate them a little bit more. Yes, there are nutters in the Tory party, of course there are, just like there is in every party. But really. We are fortunate to live in a country where all our mainstream parties are just that and the nutters of all stripes make noise but have little control or influence.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
Is he?
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Has it changed, or did I miss something?
Trump likes The Strong Horse.
These days, Putin’s Mighty Weapons are looking a bit droopy.
Only the terminally stupid would think Trump will do what is the best for Ukraine.
Remember this?
The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a U.S. political scandal that arose from the discovery of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine and other countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and giving misinformation relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics.
Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package in an attempt to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
What Trump will do is whatever he this is a win for himself.
He principally seems to be running to be President to cut off most legal issues he is facing.
Plus ego, but that's less unusual, though trying to get the House to 'expunge' his impeachment is very weird when they still happened and he probably likes to claim they don't matter.
Rishi is focused on rallying his base, who are currently sitting at home on their hands as the by-elections showed, and because he can't do an awful lot more about the economy, public services, taxation and inflation right now he's lasering in on core vote pressure points. This will all have been carefully polled and focus grouped, so laugh at or dismiss it at your peril.
The strategy will then be to pivot back to cost of living issues in the Spring, as and when the economic situation permits it, to try and layer a few more votes on top.
No, it's not much of a strategy but it's probably the only realistic one Sunak has got.
Re: the Manc weather, looking at the live radar, you could almost convince yourself that it’s clear behind the section of rain currently over town. It’s dry over the Irish Sea and still two hours until we are due to start.
Wishful thinking?
BBC weather this morning said that play should be possible tomorrow after a delayed start
I’m looking at the radar and wondering about today. It’s possible to convince yourself that the clear slot over the Isle of Man will push over Manchester in a few hours. The system seems to have been more progressive than originally forecast (it chucked it down all night…)
Met Office is forecasting persistent rain for today and tomorrow with one brief break at 3pm this afternoon.
Two draws on display - one for the cricket, and one set for whoever goes swimming on the outfield.
Betfair thinks so. England 2.6 draw 1.6, pretty much reversed from stumps yesterday
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It's been a good idea inside the North/South circular. It was a good idea when Boris introduced it in the very centre of London.
There is a cost to society of super polluting vehicles, and it seems fair that the users of those vehicles pay it. By all means question the exact price, or the exact location- though it's not obvious where else you can draw the line.
But "polluter pays" is exactly what should be happening.
I think most of the pollution now comes from delivery vehicles, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I think business vehicles only have a short-term exemption, so that one will fix itself.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
And it is usually the one's least able to, it was ever thus
The least able are having to pay because the UK government has refused to adequately fund scrappage schemes. Put another way, the ones that can most afford it will not help the ones who can least afford it.
The problem with all scrappage schemes I've ever seen is they want you to trade in old cars for brand new ones.
Well, even with help, most driving an old banger are about as likely to be able to afford a new car as I am to get an honest answer from the DfE about their latest safeguarding failure.
If you really want to get the polluting old ones off the road, give people a £6,000 voucher for any car of any age providing it is ULEZ compliant and the old cars would vanish faster than Boris Johnson on being found guilty of lying to Parliament.
The ULEZ expansion charge kicks in at the end of next month. At that point it starts to become far less of a political hot potato because the vast majority of people in London will realise they are not affected. It was the perfect gift to the Tories for Uxbridge, but it’s a one time hit. It will never be as salient again.
Spot on. I couldn’t grasp why so many people were confused about whether they were affected. It takes 20 seconds to put your reg into the website to find out.
I disagree.
It will be salient in both London elections next year.
The fact that people could find out whether they'll be personally affected is an absolute classic of the problem with Labour's campaigning. Rather than go out and pro-actively explain and advocate the policy, they went all defensive and timid on it, with their candidate in a no-man's-land opinion of 'yes, maybe later, maybe somewhere else', which convinces no-one of either his own backbone or the policy's merits.
Labour's failure in Uxbridge wasn't one of expectations management; it was one of bad campaigning. They allowed the Tories to define the central issue of the campaign - which itself was grossly inept given how the by-election came about and the general decay of the govt - and then failed to provide and adequate answer to the Tory charge. Asking people to find out for themselves, as per Anabobazina above, is really how not to do politics.
The important point though is this: while the ULEZ issue is both time- and area-limited, the way that Labour reacted to Tory campaigning is not. Those instincts are characteristic of Starmer's leadership (see also Labour's Brexit policy from 2019). If the Tories can find the right wedge issue, Labour could well blow it, simply because they're reactive, unwilling to go out and set the agenda and have an inclination to fence-sit when faced with a difficult decision, so upsetting both sides.
FWIW, I don't think there is a wedge issue that will work, and trying the wrong one/s could backfire by placing the Tories on the wrong side of the wedge. Still, it doesn't auger well for Labour in government.
I think you're wrong on ULEZ expansion because it will already have happened but totally agree on the broader point. Labour is far too reactive and that is a major weakness. This does give the Tories an opportunity. But they have to find the right issue. It won't be ULEZ but it could be something else. I think the Tory problem is that Sunak is not the one to lead any kind of culture war campaign. He is as inauthentic as Starmer is when it comes to these issues. Johnson didn't care about any of them either, but he knew how to press buttons and to deliver with a nod and a wink.
Re: the Manc weather, looking at the live radar, you could almost convince yourself that it’s clear behind the section of rain currently over town. It’s dry over the Irish Sea and still two hours until we are due to start.
Wishful thinking?
BBC weather this morning said that play should be possible tomorrow after a delayed start
I’m looking at the radar and wondering about today. It’s possible to convince yourself that the clear slot over the Isle of Man will push over Manchester in a few hours. The system seems to have been more progressive than originally forecast (it chucked it down all night…)
Met Office is forecasting persistent rain for today and tomorrow with one brief break at 3pm this afternoon.
Two draws on display - one for the cricket, and one set for whoever goes swimming on the outfield.
I know what the forecast is. But I’m looking at the radar.
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
I dont run into them now I moved away from that place strangely and even the nice people I knew turned to the cockroaches of society when they moved to the Wen
Cost of living and house prices in london likely big reason for this.
Nods don't disagree, just like living in a prison for years changes your attitudes so does london because while the bars and locks aren't physically there they are still there in terms of cost of housing and living
You are wildly overstating the position. If you just said London's an unfriendly place compared to most other places in Britain, that would unfortunately be accurate.
I actually don't think even that is true anymore.
Even northern cities vary in friendliness. I would say Newcastle is friendlier than leeds for example.
Leeds I’ve always found to be quite an aggressive place. I’ve always been expert at avoiding physical confrontation but Leeds is the place where I’ve been started on more than anywhere (by a fair margin).
Only been to Newcastle a couple of times but have found it welcoming and pleasant (the most welcoming city I’ve been in the UK was Belfast).
London is somewhere in the middle, I think. The irrational hostility folk have towards the place is a bit irrational.
Yes, I've never felt particularly safe in Leeds. Not sure about Manchester either, to be honest.
In Liverpool ok provided you keep your mouth shut and go along with their grievance culture if it comes up.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
Big cities like the UK like London, Oxford, Manchester, Cardiff, Leeds and Edinburgh are more liberal than rural areas certainly and have more graduates. Villages are sometimes more liberal than nearby working class towns eg villages near Barnsley or Bolsover as sometimes villages are posher and more middle class than towns in the UK, especially in the North and Midlands
On Trump and Ukraine we're supposed to believe he means the opposite of what he intimates on this issue for some reason. Outside a few Senate hawks the GOP seem to be cooling on the conflict, and you have to look at what appeals to the base. Trump's appeal is to end it immediately, and there's only one way that happens.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
The ULEZ expansion charge kicks in at the end of next month. At that point it starts to become far less of a political hot potato because the vast majority of people in London will realise they are not affected. It was the perfect gift to the Tories for Uxbridge, but it’s a one time hit. It will never be as salient again.
Spot on. I couldn’t grasp why so many people were confused about whether they were affected. It takes 20 seconds to put your reg into the website to find out.
I disagree.
It will be salient in both London elections next year.
The fact that people could find out whether they'll be personally affected is an absolute classic of the problem with Labour's campaigning. Rather than go out and pro-actively explain and advocate the policy, they went all defensive and timid on it, with their candidate in a no-man's-land opinion of 'yes, maybe later, maybe somewhere else', which convinces no-one of either his own backbone or the policy's merits.
Labour's failure in Uxbridge wasn't one of expectations management; it was one of bad campaigning. They allowed the Tories to define the central issue of the campaign - which itself was grossly inept given how the by-election came about and the general decay of the govt - and then failed to provide and adequate answer to the Tory charge. Asking people to find out for themselves, as per Anabobazina above, is really how not to do politics.
The important point though is this: while the ULEZ issue is both time- and area-limited, the way that Labour reacted to Tory campaigning is not. Those instincts are characteristic of Starmer's leadership (see also Labour's Brexit policy from 2019). If the Tories can find the right wedge issue, Labour could well blow it, simply because they're reactive, unwilling to go out and set the agenda and have an inclination to fence-sit when faced with a difficult decision, so upsetting both sides.
FWIW, I don't think there is a wedge issue that will work, and trying the wrong one/s could backfire by placing the Tories on the wrong side of the wedge. Still, it doesn't auger well for Labour in government.
I think you're wrong on ULEZ expansion because it will already have happened but totally agree on the broader point. Labour is far too reactive and that is a major weakness. This does give the Tories an opportunity. But they have to find the right issue. It won't be ULEZ but it could be something else. I think the Tory problem is that Sunak is not the one to lead any kind of culture war campaign. He is as inauthentic as Starmer is when it comes to these issues. Johnson didn't care about any of them either, but he knew how to press buttons and to deliver with a nod and a wink.
In short it doesn't matter for GE24/25 but politicians who lie to the people do better
Re: the Manc weather, looking at the live radar, you could almost convince yourself that it’s clear behind the section of rain currently over town. It’s dry over the Irish Sea and still two hours until we are due to start.
Wishful thinking?
Next helping closing in on County Mayo I think. Probably waterlogged too.
It’s A Long Way To County Mayooooooo
You'll have Hellman's IP lawyers after you for that, they are very protective of their trade marks.
My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us about
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translator
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
No she doesn’t I'm afraid. You are just misty eyed about your progeny and because you are pretty much incapable of original thought yourself you just can't see it.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
I'm unrepentent on my stance on this - it's the "polluter pays" principle, which has been a thing for decades, applied to the individual, and has been coming down the track for a long time. The numbers affected will be a tiny proportion - well under 10% of 2.6 million vehicles, which equates to a tiny proportion of voters.
It quite reminds me of complaints we hear about the need to improve energy efficiency of our own homes - lots of complaining, but *that* policy was first announced around 2012 by the coalition government.
The problems with this are
1) the taxation and cost of replacing vehicles falls on the poorer section of society.
2) Meanwhile the owner of a £90k EV pays nothing - even parking in Central London for very little, by using a charging bay. A game that is played is to park up, connect the charger, then not actually register/pay. Free parking!
3) the polluters pays principe would mean that payment should be connected to the pollution. It is a flat rate charge, rather than targeting the vehicles that actually produces the embody pollution.
4) the owners of compliant ICE vehicles are convinced, by experience, that they will be next
Once again, we have the Politicians Syllogism
1) We must do something 2) This is something 3) Therefore, we must do This
Point 1 was definitely the driver. They *had* to do something as pollution was literally killing Londoners. ULEZ has been lovingly described on here as being typically socialist - perhaps Boris is less understood than we thought.
As we've already done to death though, this isn't affecting "the poorest" as almost every vehicle that is used as a daily driver by "the poorest" is compliant. The only ones that may not be are old diesels - which aren't designed to be driven short distances anyway and will break soon, needing trade-in for something else.
Why is ULEZ so upsetting for people like Ferrari and far outer fringe residents? It isn't their daily driver that's hit, its their weekend cars. So again, not "the poorest" - a few edge cases who need more money throwing at them.
The real step change with ULEZ needs to be going after delivery vehicles. The "I want it now" revolution which has stuck flotillas of Amazon vans into every urban environment is Very Bad for pollution. Offer tax breaks for electric vans combined with big stick tax penalties for sticking with diseasal.
Also, it reminds people that they are deemed to be in London, when a fair few people moved to Hillingdon/Havering/Bromley with the express aim of leaving London behind. See the results map from the 1998 Mayoral referendum;
But we've been through this multiple times. Congestion Charge. ULEZ1 and ULEZ2. Shroud waving beforehand and it turns out fine.
This may be different, but it doesn't seem the way to bet.
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
It hasn't been appropriate for young kids for decades. Bloody terrifying.
I agree and don't agree.
It is terrifying and it is the case it should have been PG from the start.
But I loved it as a kid. It's just not appropriate for all kids hence the PG being correct!
but if you don't toughen kids up by making them watch cartoons of rabbits get eaten or hedgehogs being squashed ala Animals of Farthing Wood they grow up all woke.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
Erm...
It is unlikely. Just not quite as unlikely as one would wish.
Still dont see how Biden makes it through another term given his health.
That's a 50/50 but hopefully he'll be up to beating Trump if the GOP really are crazy enough to nominate him.
The only reason they won't is legal issues, and the various trials start too late to stop that.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And in terms of being 'friendly' or not I'm doubtful there's any material difference between people according to which country, city, town, or village they live in. Ditto with almost all other personal attributes. These bulk characteristics are mainly artefacts to oil conversations.
bollocks are they about oil conversations, I havent driven in 15 years. I dont like them because they are arseholes when I was in the southeast
Just to clarify, I meant they oil conversations not allow conversations about oil.
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
It hasn't been appropriate for young kids for decades. Bloody terrifying.
I agree and don't agree.
It is terrifying and it is the case it should have been PG from the start.
But I loved it as a kid. It's just not appropriate for all kids hence the PG being correct!
but if you don't toughen kids up by making them watch cartoons of rabbits get eaten or hedgehogs being squashed ala Animals of Farthing Wood they grow up all woke.
The ULEZ expansion charge kicks in at the end of next month. At that point it starts to become far less of a political hot potato because the vast majority of people in London will realise they are not affected. It was the perfect gift to the Tories for Uxbridge, but it’s a one time hit. It will never be as salient again.
Spot on. I couldn’t grasp why so many people were confused about whether they were affected. It takes 20 seconds to put your reg into the website to find out.
I disagree.
It will be salient in both London elections next year.
The fact that people could find out whether they'll be personally affected is an absolute classic of the problem with Labour's campaigning. Rather than go out and pro-actively explain and advocate the policy, they went all defensive and timid on it, with their candidate in a no-man's-land opinion of 'yes, maybe later, maybe somewhere else', which convinces no-one of either his own backbone or the policy's merits.
Labour's failure in Uxbridge wasn't one of expectations management; it was one of bad campaigning. They allowed the Tories to define the central issue of the campaign - which itself was grossly inept given how the by-election came about and the general decay of the govt - and then failed to provide and adequate answer to the Tory charge. Asking people to find out for themselves, as per Anabobazina above, is really how not to do politics.
The important point though is this: while the ULEZ issue is both time- and area-limited, the way that Labour reacted to Tory campaigning is not. Those instincts are characteristic of Starmer's leadership (see also Labour's Brexit policy from 2019). If the Tories can find the right wedge issue, Labour could well blow it, simply because they're reactive, unwilling to go out and set the agenda and have an inclination to fence-sit when faced with a difficult decision, so upsetting both sides.
FWIW, I don't think there is a wedge issue that will work, and trying the wrong one/s could backfire by placing the Tories on the wrong side of the wedge. Still, it doesn't auger well for Labour in government.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
And it is usually the one's least able to, it was ever thus
It is the poorest who are most exposed to air pollution, while most poor people in London don't even have a car. The affected cars are mostly diesels, often larger cars. Plenty of well off people are affected (which is why there is such a fuss about it). Eg when the ULEZ was first extended, we had to replace our car, and we are not poor.
My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us about
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translator
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
No she doesn’t I'm afraid. You are just misty eyed about your progeny and because you are pretty much incapable of original thought yourself you just can't see it.
Excuse me
I have long been of the opinion the British Museum displays items brought back from countries without their permission, and only where the countries are content for us to retain them as trustees should they stay rather than be returned
This new Sunak plan: "Divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights". What could they be? I have to assume culture war.
CRIME: Braverman worked very hard to secure the pro-golliwog vote. Perhaps they abolish most of the protections against racism sexism homophobia etc. "Say what you think with the Tories". And assuming we have enough police officers to catch criminals (and thanks to the Tories we don't), perhaps bring in "community punishment" where local scrotes are allowed to kick the shit out of other local scrotes.
MIGRANT BOATS: So far this policy has been a disaster. Record numbers on small boats which we can only just catch on arrival, nowhere to store migrants without vast cost, no way to deport to foreign as Rwanda won't take them and its screamingly illegal. The navy refuses to do tow backs as they will sink boats and drown migrants. Perhaps create RSBI - the Royal Stop the Boats Institutes. Where tattooed gentlemen volunteer to man the anti-lifeboat which drags the migrant boat to the bottom. Live on the Nigel Farage show on GBeebies.
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: As with the proposal to simply abolish namby pamby "rights" for people who don't like to be sexually assaulted, simply abolish trans rights. Make it a legal definition that someone with a penis is a man, make use of the wrong toilet punishable by jail time. And perhaps a nice series of "documentaries" on GBeebies where they describe trannies in derogatory terms and highlight cases where they have been deviant.
Mmmmm. That will do it. Conservatism at its finest.
There is a weird and sudden shortage of straw.
Naah, I don't think burning a Wicker Man will Stop The Boats.
What I write was satire. But I go back to what is being reported. Culture Wars-based "divisive" policies on crime, migrants and trans right.
I expect they will be trying to create wedge issues to get underneath this Labour lead. So being deliberately divisive will be to dog-whistle "common sense" (as Big_G puts it) proposals to their remaining voter base.
Going off how often the hard right complain that they have been silenced, I can see some kind of "its not racist [to be racist]" say what you think message. Especially when it comes to refugees.
We had a wave of racism following the Brexit vote, if there are votes in it they will do it. Hence Braverman putting it out that she had censured Essicksinnit police for going after Golliwogs.
I know you don't like it. Doesn't mean they aren't doing it though. And they're doing it in your name...
I had visions of the white(ish) cliffs of Dover lined with burning straw men.
I really don't get this desire to see the enemy as the worst part of themselves just so you can hate them a little bit more. Yes, there are nutters in the Tory party, of course there are, just like there is in every party. But really. We are fortunate to live in a country where all our mainstream parties are just that and the nutters of all stripes make noise but have little control or influence.
I don't hate anyone - its a pointless self-consuming emotion. Even if I did, I don't "hate Tories". You seem to be implying that I am making this up - its all backed up by real world actions and statements.
That pub with the golliwogs. Braverman did put out that she'd censured Essex police. Why? To win the votes of the people who like golliwogs. Braverman did describe children fleeing from war as "invading aliens". Jenrick really did order Micky to be painted over.
You say the nutters have "little control or influence". Braverman is Home Secretary. And she is hardly alone - entertainingly the nutters in the cabinet appear to be the restrained version of what so many Tory back-benchers say. And we hear from reports that Tory associations are even more unhinged.
I don't want any of this to be true - its pitiful. But it is true.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
And it is usually the one's least able to, it was ever thus
The least able are having to pay because the UK government has refused to adequately fund scrappage schemes. Put another way, the ones that can most afford it will not help the ones who can least afford it.
The problem with all scrappage schemes I've ever seen is they want you to trade in old cars for brand new ones.
Well, even with help, most driving an old banger are about as likely to be able to afford a new car as I am to get an honest answer from the DfE about their latest safeguarding failure.
If you really want to get the polluting old ones off the road, give people a £6,000 voucher for any car of any age providing it is ULEZ compliant and the old cars would vanish faster than Boris Johnson on being found guilty of lying to Parliament.
This one isn't though. Scrap your car and get some money.
Maybe a wider scheme would be better, but the total cash available is set by central government.
(And there's no reason at all why you should have known different. But the incomplete media coverage of the scheme is one of the reasons for its lousy perception.)
My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
Doesn't take much to.make you proud obviously. She has been watching far too much BBC content
What about her comment is untrue ?
Lots. There's a lot in the British Museum that was acquired or purchased by the museum in good faith, or honestly donated, or recovered and restored when the alternative would have been almost certain destruction by war or insurrection.
Your granddaughter is simply parroting the fashionable shibboleths of the times and injecting none of her own original thought into it.
Sure, she's expressing a vaguely political opinion in public, and that might show she's come of age to some degree, but it's nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid.
Yep. It is a sad indictment of the state of affairs today - not the fact that Big_G's daughter has a gap in her knowledge, but that he is proud of her for that fact.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Yes, NATO will survive. However the US won’t be contributing as much as it starts to look East to the new enemy, and European nations will need to increase their own military spending to fill the gap.
Will it be NATO minus USA as Trump has suggested?
I don’t think the Americans will actually leave NATO, but they’ll quite possibly threaten to leave as leverage to get European defence spending up. Bonus points if that increased spending goes on American kit.
It doesn't matter whether the US threatens to quit or actually quits. What matters is whether their treaty commitments are credible to potential enemies.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
My 16 year old Ford Fiesta with £160k miles is ULEZ compliant.
My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
Doesn't take much to.make you proud obviously. She has been watching far too much BBC content
What about her comment is untrue ?
It's not *all* our stolen goods.
Still makes me laugh.
Naaah we paid for some of the mummies and had the Rosetta stone off the Frenchies. In any case, I like to think of our Great Nation as merely the trustee of these treasures.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
I dont run into them now I moved away from that place strangely and even the nice people I knew turned to the cockroaches of society when they moved to the Wen
Cost of living and house prices in london likely big reason for this.
Nods don't disagree, just like living in a prison for years changes your attitudes so does london because while the bars and locks aren't physically there they are still there in terms of cost of housing and living
You are wildly overstating the position. If you just said London's an unfriendly place compared to most other places in Britain, that would unfortunately be accurate.
I actually don't think even that is true anymore.
Even northern cities vary in friendliness. I would say Newcastle is friendlier than leeds for example.
Leeds I’ve always found to be quite an aggressive place. I’ve always been expert at avoiding physical confrontation but Leeds is the place where I’ve been started on more than anywhere (by a fair margin).
Only been to Newcastle a couple of times but have found it welcoming and pleasant (the most welcoming city I’ve been in the UK was Belfast).
London is somewhere in the middle, I think. The irrational hostility folk have towards the place is a bit irrational.
Yes, I've never felt particularly safe in Leeds. Not sure about Manchester either, to be honest.
In Liverpool ok provided you keep your mouth shut and go along with their grievance culture if it comes up.
I’ve lived in Manchester (well, Stockport too) for well over a decade and never *personally* felt it to be a threatening place but that might just reflect my life stage and habits.
The closest was when I went to watch a City match as an away supporter with my Chelsea-supporting friend. As any City fan will tell you, they have a sizeable dickhead quota in their fanbase (as do Utd tbf, and while I support neither I have preference for City of the two).
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
How much more expensive do you think a ULEZ compliant car is than a non compliant one?
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
How much more expensive do you think a ULEZ compliant car is than a non compliant one?
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It's been a good idea inside the North/South circular. It was a good idea when Boris introduced it in the very centre of London.
There is a cost to society of super polluting vehicles, and it seems fair that the users of those vehicles pay it. By all means question the exact price, or the exact location- though it's not obvious where else you can draw the line.
But "polluter pays" is exactly what should be happening.
I think most of the pollution now comes from delivery vehicles, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I think business vehicles only have a short-term exemption, so that one will fix itself.
Missed the edit deadline.
We also now have a "zero emissions / lower emissions" sector of the delivery market - either using ZEV or e-cycle microvans (which look very like the Postman Pat van). Amazon have trials running, for example.
This new Sunak plan: "Divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights". What could they be? I have to assume culture war.
CRIME: Braverman worked very hard to secure the pro-golliwog vote. Perhaps they abolish most of the protections against racism sexism homophobia etc. "Say what you think with the Tories". And assuming we have enough police officers to catch criminals (and thanks to the Tories we don't), perhaps bring in "community punishment" where local scrotes are allowed to kick the shit out of other local scrotes.
MIGRANT BOATS: So far this policy has been a disaster. Record numbers on small boats which we can only just catch on arrival, nowhere to store migrants without vast cost, no way to deport to foreign as Rwanda won't take them and its screamingly illegal. The navy refuses to do tow backs as they will sink boats and drown migrants. Perhaps create RSBI - the Royal Stop the Boats Institutes. Where tattooed gentlemen volunteer to man the anti-lifeboat which drags the migrant boat to the bottom. Live on the Nigel Farage show on GBeebies.
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: As with the proposal to simply abolish namby pamby "rights" for people who don't like to be sexually assaulted, simply abolish trans rights. Make it a legal definition that someone with a penis is a man, make use of the wrong toilet punishable by jail time. And perhaps a nice series of "documentaries" on GBeebies where they describe trannies in derogatory terms and highlight cases where they have been deviant.
Mmmmm. That will do it. Conservatism at its finest.
There is a weird and sudden shortage of straw.
Naah, I don't think burning a Wicker Man will Stop The Boats.
What I write was satire. But I go back to what is being reported. Culture Wars-based "divisive" policies on crime, migrants and trans right.
I expect they will be trying to create wedge issues to get underneath this Labour lead. So being deliberately divisive will be to dog-whistle "common sense" (as Big_G puts it) proposals to their remaining voter base.
Going off how often the hard right complain that they have been silenced, I can see some kind of "its not racist [to be racist]" say what you think message. Especially when it comes to refugees.
We had a wave of racism following the Brexit vote, if there are votes in it they will do it. Hence Braverman putting it out that she had censured Essicksinnit police for going after Golliwogs.
I know you don't like it. Doesn't mean they aren't doing it though. And they're doing it in your name...
I had visions of the white(ish) cliffs of Dover lined with burning straw men.
I really don't get this desire to see the enemy as the worst part of themselves just so you can hate them a little bit more. Yes, there are nutters in the Tory party, of course there are, just like there is in every party. But really. We are fortunate to live in a country where all our mainstream parties are just that and the nutters of all stripes make noise but have little control or influence.
Where you been the last 4 years David, we have had a bunch of crooked spivs wrecking the country.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
How much more expensive do you think a ULEZ compliant car is than a non compliant one?
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It's been a good idea inside the North/South circular. It was a good idea when Boris introduced it in the very centre of London.
There is a cost to society of super polluting vehicles, and it seems fair that the users of those vehicles pay it. By all means question the exact price, or the exact location- though it's not obvious where else you can draw the line.
But "polluter pays" is exactly what should be happening.
I think most of the pollution now comes from delivery vehicles, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I think business vehicles only have a short-term exemption, so that one will fix itself.
Missed the edit deadline.
We also now have a "zero emissions / lower emissions" sector of the delivery market - either using ZEV or e-cycle microvans (which look very like the Postman Pat van). Amazon have trials running, for example.
This new Sunak plan: "Divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights". What could they be? I have to assume culture war.
CRIME: Braverman worked very hard to secure the pro-golliwog vote. Perhaps they abolish most of the protections against racism sexism homophobia etc. "Say what you think with the Tories". And assuming we have enough police officers to catch criminals (and thanks to the Tories we don't), perhaps bring in "community punishment" where local scrotes are allowed to kick the shit out of other local scrotes.
MIGRANT BOATS: So far this policy has been a disaster. Record numbers on small boats which we can only just catch on arrival, nowhere to store migrants without vast cost, no way to deport to foreign as Rwanda won't take them and its screamingly illegal. The navy refuses to do tow backs as they will sink boats and drown migrants. Perhaps create RSBI - the Royal Stop the Boats Institutes. Where tattooed gentlemen volunteer to man the anti-lifeboat which drags the migrant boat to the bottom. Live on the Nigel Farage show on GBeebies.
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: As with the proposal to simply abolish namby pamby "rights" for people who don't like to be sexually assaulted, simply abolish trans rights. Make it a legal definition that someone with a penis is a man, make use of the wrong toilet punishable by jail time. And perhaps a nice series of "documentaries" on GBeebies where they describe trannies in derogatory terms and highlight cases where they have been deviant.
Mmmmm. That will do it. Conservatism at its finest.
There is a weird and sudden shortage of straw.
Naah, I don't think burning a Wicker Man will Stop The Boats.
What I write was satire. But I go back to what is being reported. Culture Wars-based "divisive" policies on crime, migrants and trans right.
I expect they will be trying to create wedge issues to get underneath this Labour lead. So being deliberately divisive will be to dog-whistle "common sense" (as Big_G puts it) proposals to their remaining voter base.
Going off how often the hard right complain that they have been silenced, I can see some kind of "its not racist [to be racist]" say what you think message. Especially when it comes to refugees.
We had a wave of racism following the Brexit vote, if there are votes in it they will do it. Hence Braverman putting it out that she had censured Essicksinnit police for going after Golliwogs.
I know you don't like it. Doesn't mean they aren't doing it though. And they're doing it in your name...
I had visions of the white(ish) cliffs of Dover lined with burning straw men.
I really don't get this desire to see the enemy as the worst part of themselves just so you can hate them a little bit more. Yes, there are nutters in the Tory party, of course there are, just like there is in every party. But really. We are fortunate to live in a country where all our mainstream parties are just that and the nutters of all stripes make noise but have little control or influence.
Where you been the last 4 years David, we have had a bunch of crooked spivs wrecking the country.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
You can buy a ULEZ compliant car for less than £1000, and you can get £2000 for scrapping a non-ULEZ compliant car.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
My 16 year old Ford Fiesta with £160k miles is ULEZ compliant.
And is probably now worth more than it was when it was 12 years old, partly because of ULEZ compliance.....
On Trump and Ukraine we're supposed to believe he means the opposite of what he intimates on this issue for some reason. Outside a few Senate hawks the GOP seem to be cooling on the conflict, and you have to look at what appeals to the base. Trump's appeal is to end it immediately, and there's only one way that happens.
Trump would be as hard on China over Taiwan and trade as Biden, if not harder.
However he would push for a deal between Putin and Ukraine as would most of the GOP with a few exceptions like Pence and Romney
On Trump and Ukraine we're supposed to believe he means the opposite of what he intimates on this issue for some reason. Outside a few Senate hawks the GOP seem to be cooling on the conflict, and you have to look at what appeals to the base. Trump's appeal is to end it immediately, and there's only one way that happens.
Turmp is a simple person easily over-complicated in analysis. When he says something, he means it - in the moment at least (consistency is not a strong suit of his).
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate. Seat Belts Drink Drive laws Unleaded petrol Fuel efficiency Vehicle security
Blimey, a lot of chippiness on here this morning. It’s the weekend, chill out! England on shortly as well.
Or not. But perhaps a tiny bit of play early afternoon and an hour or two tomorrow morning.
The most reliable high res rainfall model is the French Arôme. That’s showing a bit of a dry window around 2pm. It then shows drying conditions tomorrow before midday.
But that’s it. Either we skittle Australia out in short order or they retain the ashes.
My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us about
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translator
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
The governments of India and Pakistan have entered a protest that she is wrong.
The Koh-i-Noor is in the Crown Jewels of England so not *all* Britain's stolen goods are in the British Museum.
I'm baffled why people would agree to visit museums considered to be full of stolen goods if its an opinion which is more than a gag.
Most of the big western museums would have few artefacts left if only ones from that nation were allowed
Nobody's worrying about the small stuff in the research collections. It's the big stuff like the Elgin Marbles. You'd go bananas if the Crown of Charles II was stolen by the Indians and on display in Delhi. Or the tomb of Henry whoever he was was stolen from Westminster Abbey and in a Greek museum.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
How much more expensive do you think a ULEZ compliant car is than a non compliant one?
If a Tesla then humungously more expensive
And it it were the ten year old petrol car (ULEZ compliant) currently on my driveway?
My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us about
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translator
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
No she doesn’t I'm afraid. You are just misty eyed about your progeny and because you are pretty much incapable of original thought yourself you just can't see it.
Excuse me
I have long been of the opinion the British Museum displays items brought back from countries without their permission, and only where the countries are content for us to retain them as trustees should they stay rather than be returned
Your opinions usually last about two weeks so I'll treat this with a pinch of salt until the mood changes and you revise this too.
This new Sunak plan: "Divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights". What could they be? I have to assume culture war.
CRIME: Braverman worked very hard to secure the pro-golliwog vote. Perhaps they abolish most of the protections against racism sexism homophobia etc. "Say what you think with the Tories". And assuming we have enough police officers to catch criminals (and thanks to the Tories we don't), perhaps bring in "community punishment" where local scrotes are allowed to kick the shit out of other local scrotes.
MIGRANT BOATS: So far this policy has been a disaster. Record numbers on small boats which we can only just catch on arrival, nowhere to store migrants without vast cost, no way to deport to foreign as Rwanda won't take them and its screamingly illegal. The navy refuses to do tow backs as they will sink boats and drown migrants. Perhaps create RSBI - the Royal Stop the Boats Institutes. Where tattooed gentlemen volunteer to man the anti-lifeboat which drags the migrant boat to the bottom. Live on the Nigel Farage show on GBeebies.
TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: As with the proposal to simply abolish namby pamby "rights" for people who don't like to be sexually assaulted, simply abolish trans rights. Make it a legal definition that someone with a penis is a man, make use of the wrong toilet punishable by jail time. And perhaps a nice series of "documentaries" on GBeebies where they describe trannies in derogatory terms and highlight cases where they have been deviant.
Mmmmm. That will do it. Conservatism at its finest.
There is a weird and sudden shortage of straw.
Naah, I don't think burning a Wicker Man will Stop The Boats.
What I write was satire. But I go back to what is being reported. Culture Wars-based "divisive" policies on crime, migrants and trans right.
I expect they will be trying to create wedge issues to get underneath this Labour lead. So being deliberately divisive will be to dog-whistle "common sense" (as Big_G puts it) proposals to their remaining voter base.
Going off how often the hard right complain that they have been silenced, I can see some kind of "its not racist [to be racist]" say what you think message. Especially when it comes to refugees.
We had a wave of racism following the Brexit vote, if there are votes in it they will do it. Hence Braverman putting it out that she had censured Essicksinnit police for going after Golliwogs.
I know you don't like it. Doesn't mean they aren't doing it though. And they're doing it in your name...
I had visions of the white(ish) cliffs of Dover lined with burning straw men.
I really don't get this desire to see the enemy as the worst part of themselves just so you can hate them a little bit more. Yes, there are nutters in the Tory party, of course there are, just like there is in every party. But really. We are fortunate to live in a country where all our mainstream parties are just that and the nutters of all stripes make noise but have little control or influence.
Where you been the last 4 years David, we have had a bunch of crooked spivs wrecking the country.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
Local councils often (possibly have to) consult residents with changes such as parking permits. A very common outcome is the residents voting against the change, but the council proceeding anyway. Not really sure how such consultations help.....
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
I dont run into them now I moved away from that place strangely and even the nice people I knew turned to the cockroaches of society when they moved to the Wen
Cost of living and house prices in london likely big reason for this.
Nods don't disagree, just like living in a prison for years changes your attitudes so does london because while the bars and locks aren't physically there they are still there in terms of cost of housing and living
You are wildly overstating the position. If you just said London's an unfriendly place compared to most other places in Britain, that would unfortunately be accurate.
I actually don't think even that is true anymore.
Even northern cities vary in friendliness. I would say Newcastle is friendlier than leeds for example.
Leeds I’ve always found to be quite an aggressive place. I’ve always been expert at avoiding physical confrontation but Leeds is the place where I’ve been started on more than anywhere (by a fair margin).
Only been to Newcastle a couple of times but have found it welcoming and pleasant (the most welcoming city I’ve been in the UK was Belfast).
London is somewhere in the middle, I think. The irrational hostility folk have towards the place is a bit irrational.
Yes, I've never felt particularly safe in Leeds. Not sure about Manchester either, to be honest.
In Liverpool ok provided you keep your mouth shut and go along with their grievance culture if it comes up.
I’ve lived in Manchester (well, Stockport too) for well over a decade and never *personally* felt it to be a threatening place but that might just reflect my life stage and habits.
The closest was when I went to watch a City match as an away supporter with my Chelsea-supporting friend. As any City fan will tell you, they have a sizeable dickhead quota in their fanbase (as do Utd tbf, and while I support neither I have preference for City of the two).
My principle is basically to actively avoid large groups of young men or, indeed, more than two young men.
99 times out of a hundred that's enough to avoid trouble.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
Even in Oxford and Cambridge these schemes have led to a significant level of opposition. The Tories won their first council seat in Cambridge for about 30 years a few weeks ago due to the issue.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate. Seat Belts Drink Drive laws Unleaded petrol Fuel efficiency Vehicle security
Yes, I remember well the horror stories about the mangled engines and super-expensive cars that would result from the use of non-leaded petrol.
My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
Doesn't take much to.make you proud obviously. She has been watching far too much BBC content
What about her comment is untrue ?
Lots. There's a lot in the British Museum that was acquired or purchased by the museum in good faith, or honestly donated, or recovered and restored when the alternative would have been almost certain destruction by war or insurrection.
Your granddaughter is simply parroting the fashionable shibboleths of the times and injecting none of her own original thought into it.
Sure, she's expressing a vaguely political opinion in public, and that might show she's come of age to some degree, but it's nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid.
Yep. It is a sad indictment of the state of affairs today - not the fact that Big_G's daughter has a gap in her knowledge, but that he is proud of her for that fact.
I like Big_G personally, he's a really nice guy, but I'm afraid I don't much respect his opinions because he's a complete weathervane.
I can't begrudge anyone for expressing pride in their family, but that post simply underlined his inability to detach that from critical thinking or, indeed, to do any form of it whatsoever.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
I love this "edge case" argument, try it on some woker category than the working poor. People of colour/in transition generally do not have a car in London... I accept there will be a few edge cases...
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
How much more expensive do you think a ULEZ compliant car is than a non compliant one?
Expensive enough to lose labour a winnable seat
The fascinating thing now is how the two parties interpret the result. Tories performed below the polls, with very sharp non-publicised tactical voting in full effect.
Based on Thursday, the Tories are going to get demolished. Yet they have decided to ignore the maths and instead interpret clinging on as a triumph. That Lab / LD did so much better in their won seats than in 1997, and the Tories so much worse in their won seat than in 1997 doesn't seem to have registered.
The report earlier suggested Sunak is looking for "divisive policies on crime, migrants and trans" to use as wedge issues. Repeat the victory of anti-ULEZ by doing anti-rights. Except that their existing divisive policies in these areas and others are the reason why they are facing an electoral demolition.
On Trump and Ukraine we're supposed to believe he means the opposite of what he intimates on this issue for some reason. Outside a few Senate hawks the GOP seem to be cooling on the conflict, and you have to look at what appeals to the base. Trump's appeal is to end it immediately, and there's only one way that happens.
Trump would be as hard on China over Taiwan and trade as Biden, if not harder.
However he would push for a deal between Putin and Ukraine as would most of the GOP with a few exceptions like Pence and Romney
Any accommodation with Russia is a green light for China over Taiwan. It is fundamentally not in Europe's interests to give Putin anything, so if that is what Trump does it will split the Western Alliance and make it much tougher for the US to deal with its Asian priorities. You cannot separate the two issues.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
How much more expensive do you think a ULEZ compliant car is than a non compliant one?
Expensive enough to lose labour a winnable seat
The fascinating thing now is how the two parties interpret the result. Tories performed below the polls, with very sharp non-publicised tactical voting in full effect.
Based on Thursday, the Tories are going to get demolished. Yet they have decided to ignore the maths and instead interpret clinging on as a triumph. That Lab / LD did so much better in their won seats than in 1997, and the Tories so much worse in their won seat than in 1997 doesn't seem to have registered.
The report earlier suggested Sunak is looking for "divisive policies on crime, migrants and trans" to use as wedge issues. Repeat the victory of anti-ULEZ by doing anti-rights. Except that their existing divisive policies in these areas and others are the reason why they are facing an electoral demolition.
I think there's probably a triple decker response among the public
Politically uninformed: 2 out of 3, tories got pasted
Semi informed: tories held uxbridge against expectations, result!!
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
I still intend to vote for Wes at the GE, but will NOT vote for Sadiq at the Mayoral election. Might just sit on my hands.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate. Seat Belts Drink Drive laws Unleaded petrol Fuel efficiency Vehicle security
I don't disagree with your overall message but would point out that I believe unleaded petrol as it has been formulated since the ban on lead is probably going to turn out to be one of the greatest environmental crimes of he last few decades.
On Trump and Ukraine we're supposed to believe he means the opposite of what he intimates on this issue for some reason. Outside a few Senate hawks the GOP seem to be cooling on the conflict, and you have to look at what appeals to the base. Trump's appeal is to end it immediately, and there's only one way that happens.
Yes, the 'Trump will be good for Ukraine' view boils down to the possibility he's such a deranged narcissist he might fancy himself as leading man in a real life Dr Strangelove, creating such menace and chaos that Putin will retire trembling to his dacha. Being kind to those believing this, it's a long shot.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
I'm unrepentent on my stance on this - it's the "polluter pays" principle, which has been a thing for decades, applied to the individual, and has been coming down the track for a long time. The numbers affected will be a tiny proportion - well under 10% of 2.6 million vehicles, which equates to a tiny proportion of voters.
It quite reminds me of complaints we hear about the need to improve energy efficiency of our own homes - lots of complaining, but *that* policy was first announced around 2012 by the coalition government.
The problems with this are
1) the taxation and cost of replacing vehicles falls on the poorer section of society.
2) Meanwhile the owner of a £90k EV pays nothing - even parking in Central London for very little, by using a charging bay. A game that is played is to park up, connect the charger, then not actually register/pay. Free parking!
3) the polluters pays principe would mean that payment should be connected to the pollution. It is a flat rate charge, rather than targeting the vehicles that actually produces the embody pollution.
4) the owners of compliant ICE vehicles are convinced, by experience, that they will be next
Once again, we have the Politicians Syllogism
1) We must do something 2) This is something 3) Therefore, we must do This
1 - Not very convinced. In London a minority of people own cars, and it correlates with household income. An even smaller minority drive into London. Given that petrol cars since 2006 are compliant, replacement cost does not have to be expensive.
It might be an appropriate observation for Ed Millinad's "squeezed middle".
2 - Apart from £15k VAT ? !
I think we are on a trajectory to fix that, since Mr Osborne started backtracking on the lower end of the 2001 emissions-based VED system from 2015, when he noticed that about half of all new vehicles had become exempt. It has now reached the point where PHEVs are paying a reduced VED.
The process is currently interrupted by the Tory autocar Hail Mary pass for the next election, but I expect rapid change after then. They need about £2.5-3k per electric car per annum from somewhere. I'd see the next step as perhaps being the £40k+ super-VED for 5 years being applied to expensive electric cars.
On the E-charger parking scam - for private sites that is a matter for the operators, on publicly owned sites I'd see parking charges being applied eventually to keep them moving.
3 - There's always a simplicity vs complexity balance. It worked to reduce polluting vehicles for the previous LEZ.
4 - Are they? Then they know to change in good time. Given the generosity of the definition of "compliant" this time, that looks to me to be quite 'copable-with'.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
And it is usually the one's least able to, it was ever thus
The least able are having to pay because the UK government has refused to adequately fund scrappage schemes. Put another way, the ones that can most afford it will not help the ones who can least afford it.
The problem with all scrappage schemes I've ever seen is they want you to trade in old cars for brand new ones.
Well, even with help, most driving an old banger are about as likely to be able to afford a new car as I am to get an honest answer from the DfE about their latest safeguarding failure.
If you really want to get the polluting old ones off the road, give people a £6,000 voucher for any car of any age providing it is ULEZ compliant and the old cars would vanish faster than Boris Johnson on being found guilty of lying to Parliament.
This one isn't though. Scrap your car and get some money.
Maybe a wider scheme would be better, but the total cash available is set by central government.
(And there's no reason at all why you should have known different. But the incomplete media coverage of the scheme is one of the reasons for its lousy perception.)
When you say the total cash is set by the government is that by law or by government general underfunding and then TfL/MoL deciding how to spend it?
If they had not let 70% of fines remain unpaid could that money have gone to a scrappage scheme?
There seems to be £255m outstanding fines vs £25m committed on the scrappage scheme at end of May.
Of course when they expand the scheme and likely meet wide driver resistance they won't be able to enforce the fines given they are struggling with the much smaller and less controversial existing scheme.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
Ella Kissi-Debrah was 9 when she died of, according to the inquest, air pollution in London. 9 years is a few.
On Trump and Ukraine we're supposed to believe he means the opposite of what he intimates on this issue for some reason. Outside a few Senate hawks the GOP seem to be cooling on the conflict, and you have to look at what appeals to the base. Trump's appeal is to end it immediately, and there's only one way that happens.
Trump would be as hard on China over Taiwan and trade as Biden, if not harder.
However he would push for a deal between Putin and Ukraine as would most of the GOP with a few exceptions like Pence and Romney
Incidentally, I hope your call on Uxbridge has been properly acknowledged? Once again, you’ve demonstrated your unparalleled insight into the Tory mind - and I think that’s helped make a lot of punters better off than they would otherwise have been.
Lots that you write that I disagree with profoundly, but it’d be churlish not to recognise your value to this site.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
There is no need to increase the powers of the presidency, if Trump wants to be a dictator, which in any case would be extremely hard in practical terms as it'd mean constitutional amendment.
But for practical pursposes, a president in total command of their party *is* a dictator, particularly if backed up by a willing mob unconstrained by the forces of security. To gain organised-crime-like power, a president would need to dominate Congress, the DoJ, the armed forces and the SCOTUS, either by having active supporters in charge, by a clear refusal to act against the regime (not ideal but sufficient with the army), or by intimidation. From there, the use or threat of actual force, of impeachment or legal harassment, of bribes, of threats extorted by evidence of bribes, and of existing constitutional and executive power will do the rest. Remove the checks and balances and just about any leader is a dictator.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate. Seat Belts Drink Drive laws Unleaded petrol Fuel efficiency Vehicle security
Yes, I remember well the horror stories about the mangled engines and super-expensive cars that would result from the use of non-leaded petrol.
The leaded issue was fixed, actually, by adding different chemicals to the petrol. Which are toxic, themselves. Bit like the petrol, really.
Just seen the LD post election winning stunt. It is worth electing them just to see these. In terms of awfulness there is little to compare which they seem to be embracing wholeheartedly.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
I still intend to vote for Wes at the GE, but will NOT vote for Sadiq at the Mayoral election. Might just sit on my hands.
Fortunately for Khan, the Tories have selected a complete no hoper as their candidate (again).
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense way
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate. Seat Belts Drink Drive laws Unleaded petrol Fuel efficiency Vehicle security
I don't disagree with your overall message but would point out that I believe unleaded petrol as it has been formulated since the ban on lead is probably going to turn out to be one of the greatest environmental crimes of he last few decades.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
Erm...
It is unlikely. Just not quite as unlikely as one would wish.
Still dont see how Biden makes it through another term given his health.
That's a 50/50 but hopefully he'll be up to beating Trump if the GOP really are crazy enough to nominate him.
The only reason they won't is legal issues, and the various trials start too late to stop that.
Would even that prevent nomination?
I gather not. I'm still close to certain he won't be president again but my confidence he won't be the GOP candidate is being sorely tested. The more criminal charges he faces the better he polls in the party it would seem. The State of the Union is not good.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
You can buy a ULEZ compliant car for less than £1000, and you can get £2000 for scrapping a non-ULEZ compliant car.
We have been through this.
Not everyone is eligible for the scrappage scheme, broadly you need some form of benefit, recently after criticism including child benefit.
Within 50 miles of me in Central London Autotrader has 133,000 second hand cars. Of those 410 cars are less than £1,000, most of which will either not pass on MOT and/or be non ULEZ compliant. Only 10% of the second hand cars on Autotrader are under £4,000, again many of those not compliant.
There are approx 750,000 vehicles that are non compliant and currently go into the zone at some point each year.
The idea that these can be replaced by £1000 cars is absurd, out of touch and insulting.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
I still intend to vote for Wes at the GE, but will NOT vote for Sadiq at the Mayoral election. Might just sit on my hands.
Fortunately for Khan, the Tories have selected a complete no hoper as their candidate (again).
They should have found a well-known outsider, a Londoner version of Andy Street.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
Ella Kissi-Debrah was 9 when she died of, according to the inquest, air pollution in London. 9 years is a few.
It is a great pity that a poor girl's sad death with a very serious illness is being used as a battering ram against opposition to a deeply illiberal policy that could affect the lives and life chances of thousands of children. Leaves a nasty taste.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It's been a good idea inside the North/South circular. It was a good idea when Boris introduced it in the very centre of London.
There is a cost to society of super polluting vehicles, and it seems fair that the users of those vehicles pay it. By all means question the exact price, or the exact location- though it's not obvious where else you can draw the line.
But "polluter pays" is exactly what should be happening.
I think most of the pollution now comes from delivery vehicles, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong - I think business vehicles only have a short-term exemption, so that one will fix itself.
Missed the edit deadline.
We also now have a "zero emissions / lower emissions" sector of the delivery market - either using ZEV or e-cycle microvans (which look very like the Postman Pat van). Amazon have trials running, for example.
An anti-pollution scheme that targeted vans rather than cars, would likely have enjoyed much wider support.
And some council vehicles….
The other thing to do is to remove the exemptions on taxes, such as congestion charge, for vehicles costing more than £50k - see the stuff in the US and elsewhere. Tax breaks on super expensive ZEVs are no longer required. Time to shift the incentives to cheaper vehicles.
Use the money raised from that to subsidise a further scrapage scheme.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Yes, NATO will survive. However the US won’t be contributing as much as it starts to look East to the new enemy, and European nations will need to increase their own military spending to fill the gap.
Will it be NATO minus USA as Trump has suggested?
The almost complete destruction of the Russian military in Ukraine, where they have lost more than half of all their tanks for example, actually makes this less frightening. Europe looks much more capable of protecting itself against any obvious threat than it did 18 months ago, if only because that threat is so diminished.
I think that the Ukraine War has been a massive missed opportunity for the EU. All nations identities are built in part in opposition to an external threat, and this was a chance to use the Russian threat for European nation-building. And largely that hasn't happened.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
I still intend to vote for Wes at the GE, but will NOT vote for Sadiq at the Mayoral election. Might just sit on my hands.
Fortunately for Khan, the Tories have selected a complete no hoper as their candidate (again).
They should have found a well-known outsider, a Londoner version of Andy Street.
Paul Scully would have had a decent shout. Not sure why he didn't make the shortlist as was very keen.
Blimey, a lot of chippiness on here this morning. It’s the weekend, chill out! England on shortly as well.
Or not. But perhaps a tiny bit of play early afternoon and an hour or two tomorrow morning.
The most reliable high res rainfall model is the French Arôme. That’s showing a bit of a dry window around 2pm. It then shows drying conditions tomorrow before midday.
But that’s it. Either we skittle Australia out in short order or they retain the ashes.
Just checked and the weather looks fine in Brisbane!
It’s a historic day for Haiti as well. While I don’t fancy their chances I hope their team gives a little hope and light to that poor country.
Just seen the LD post election winning stunt. It is worth electing them just to see these. In terms of awfulness there is little to compare which they seem to be embracing wholeheartedly.
Yes, they’ve got that knowing ‘you think this is naff, wait until you see the next one’ tone now.
Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.
Comments
I really don't get this desire to see the enemy as the worst part of themselves just so you can hate them a little bit more. Yes, there are nutters in the Tory party, of course there are, just like there is in every party. But really. We are fortunate to live in a country where all our mainstream parties are just that and the nutters of all stripes make noise but have little control or influence.
Plus ego, but that's less unusual, though trying to get the House to 'expunge' his impeachment is very weird when they still happened and he probably likes to claim they don't matter.
The strategy will then be to pivot back to cost of living issues in the Spring, as and when the economic situation permits it, to try and layer a few more votes on top.
No, it's not much of a strategy but it's probably the only realistic one Sunak has got.
You can all thank me now.
Well, even with help, most driving an old banger are about as likely to be able to afford a new car as I am to get an honest answer from the DfE about their latest safeguarding failure.
If you really want to get the polluting old ones off the road, give people a £6,000 voucher for any car of any age providing it is ULEZ compliant and the old cars would vanish faster than Boris Johnson on being found guilty of lying to Parliament.
In Liverpool ok provided you keep your mouth shut and go along with their grievance culture if it comes up.
Personally not a fan (though tbh I’d want to bin VAR altogether).
Japan goal but they can’t properly celebrate it.
But we've been through this multiple times. Congestion Charge. ULEZ1 and ULEZ2. Shroud waving beforehand and it turns out fine.
This may be different, but it doesn't seem the way to bet.
Would even that prevent nomination?
Something wrong somewhere with that logic.
I have long been of the opinion the British Museum displays items brought back from countries without their permission, and only where the countries are content for us to retain them as trustees should they stay rather than be returned
Could be wrong but I believe the entire original cast is either killed or leave within a few seasons.
That pub with the golliwogs. Braverman did put out that she'd censured Essex police. Why? To win the votes of the people who like golliwogs. Braverman did describe children fleeing from war as "invading aliens". Jenrick really did order Micky to be painted over.
You say the nutters have "little control or influence". Braverman is Home Secretary. And she is hardly alone - entertainingly the nutters in the cabinet appear to be the restrained version of what so many Tory back-benchers say. And we hear from reports that Tory associations are even more unhinged.
I don't want any of this to be true - its pitiful. But it is true.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/car-and-motorcycle
Maybe a wider scheme would be better, but the total cash available is set by central government.
(And there's no reason at all why you should have known different. But the incomplete media coverage of the scheme is one of the reasons for its lousy perception.)
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
The closest was when I went to watch a City match as an away supporter with my Chelsea-supporting friend. As any City fan will tell you, they have a sizeable dickhead quota in their fanbase (as do Utd tbf, and while I support neither I have preference for City of the two).
We also now have a "zero emissions / lower emissions" sector of the delivery market - either using ZEV or e-cycle microvans (which look very like the Postman Pat van). Amazon have trials running, for example.
(Corporate Vid with plinkety-plunk music): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLf7lCPSm9g
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
However he would push for a deal between Putin and Ukraine as would most of the GOP with a few exceptions like Pence and Romney
Seat Belts
Drink Drive laws
Unleaded petrol
Fuel efficiency
Vehicle security
The most reliable high res rainfall model is the French Arôme. That’s showing a bit of a dry window around 2pm. It then shows drying conditions tomorrow before midday.
But that’s it. Either we skittle Australia out in short order or they retain the ashes.
99 times out of a hundred that's enough to avoid trouble.
No2AV 68%
Yes2AV 32%
I can't begrudge anyone for expressing pride in their family, but that post simply underlined his inability to detach that from critical thinking or, indeed, to do any form of it whatsoever.
Based on Thursday, the Tories are going to get demolished. Yet they have decided to ignore the maths and instead interpret clinging on as a triumph. That Lab / LD did so much better in their won seats than in 1997, and the Tories so much worse in their won seat than in 1997 doesn't seem to have registered.
The report earlier suggested Sunak is looking for "divisive policies on crime, migrants and trans" to use as wedge issues. Repeat the victory of anti-ULEZ by doing anti-rights. Except that their existing divisive policies in these areas and others are the reason why they are facing an electoral demolition.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/
The result that surprised me was that, even in outer London, support and opposition for ULEZ expansion are equal.
Last night and forecast vastly better over here, just spotty drizzle by and large.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
Politically uninformed: 2 out of 3, tories got pasted
Semi informed: tories held uxbridge against expectations, result!!
Curtice, Sir J: actually, tories got pasted.
It might be an appropriate observation for Ed Millinad's "squeezed middle".
2 - Apart from £15k VAT ? !
I think we are on a trajectory to fix that, since Mr Osborne started backtracking on the lower end of the 2001 emissions-based VED system from 2015, when he noticed that about half of all new vehicles had become exempt. It has now reached the point where PHEVs are paying a reduced VED.
The process is currently interrupted by the Tory autocar Hail Mary pass for the next election, but I expect rapid change after then. They need about £2.5-3k per electric car per annum from somewhere. I'd see the next step as perhaps being the £40k+ super-VED for 5 years being applied to expensive electric cars.
On the E-charger parking scam - for private sites that is a matter for the operators, on publicly owned sites I'd see parking charges being applied eventually to keep them moving.
3 - There's always a simplicity vs complexity balance. It worked to reduce polluting vehicles for the previous LEZ.
4 - Are they? Then they know to change in good time. Given the generosity of the definition of "compliant" this time, that looks to me to be quite 'copable-with'.
If they had not let 70% of fines remain unpaid could that money have gone to a scrappage scheme?
There seems to be £255m outstanding fines vs £25m committed on the scrappage scheme at end of May.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_much_in_ulez_fines_have_not
https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-announces-major-expansion-ulez-scrappage-scheme-cover-all-small-businesses-london-and-all
Of course when they expand the scheme and likely meet wide driver resistance they won't be able to enforce the fines given they are struggling with the much smaller and less controversial existing scheme.
Lots that you write that I disagree with profoundly, but it’d be churlish not to recognise your value to this site.
But for practical pursposes, a president in total command of their party *is* a dictator, particularly if backed up by a willing mob unconstrained by the forces of security. To gain organised-crime-like power, a president would need to dominate Congress, the DoJ, the armed forces and the SCOTUS, either by having active supporters in charge, by a clear refusal to act against the regime (not ideal but sufficient with the army), or by intimidation. From there, the use or threat of actual force, of impeachment or legal harassment, of bribes, of threats extorted by evidence of bribes, and of existing constitutional and executive power will do the rest. Remove the checks and balances and just about any leader is a dictator.
Not everyone is eligible for the scrappage scheme, broadly you need some form of benefit, recently after criticism including child benefit.
Within 50 miles of me in Central London Autotrader has 133,000 second hand cars. Of those 410 cars are less than £1,000, most of which will either not pass on MOT and/or be non ULEZ compliant. Only 10% of the second hand cars on Autotrader are under £4,000, again many of those not compliant.
There are approx 750,000 vehicles that are non compliant and currently go into the zone at some point each year.
The idea that these can be replaced by £1000 cars is absurd, out of touch and insulting.
The other thing to do is to remove the exemptions on taxes, such as congestion charge, for vehicles costing more than £50k - see the stuff in the US and elsewhere. Tax breaks on super expensive ZEVs are no longer required. Time to shift the incentives to cheaper vehicles.
Use the money raised from that to subsidise a further scrapage scheme.
It’s a historic day for Haiti as well. While I don’t fancy their chances I hope their team gives a little hope and light to that poor country.