The majority Brexit voting crew ! I still can’t believe so many in agriculture and fisheries voted against their own interests .
So many farmers and fishermen knew with detailed evidence to back it up that the CAP and CFP were damaging them. Brexit offered them freedom from the paperwork and restrictions. And remember that the deal we were going to get (the easiest deal in history) would ensure we could still trade.
I don't blame desperate people who had seen their industry screwed by EU rules for voting to leave, especially when morons told them such attractive lies.
The problem is that we then got bigger morons to do the deal. Well, not do a deal. And they didn't have a clue what they were asking for, talking about, doing.
"When Scotland’s fishing industry big hitters made their displeasure clear at the August 2021 meeting in Fraserburgh, Johnson claimed incredulity, according to two people present. “Frosty didn’t tell me that!” he said, referring to David Frost, the U.K.’s chief Brexit negotiator and one of his closest political allies. “Frosty said it was a good deal!” "
I was reading that. One unexpected message is that it looks as if political fixation on a small sector of the fishing industry (large pelagic ships, esp. related to Scottish Tory Party constituencies) might have led to screwing the other fisherfolk - this sector of the demersal (?) industry as well as the inshore shellfish/crusty fishers.
Edit. I don't know why I said 'unexpected'. Should know better by now.
As many of you know I live in Banff and Buchan, where local Tory lickspittle David Duguid keeps issuing leaflets crowing about how brilliant Brexit has been for the local Fraserburgh and Peterhead fishing fleets. He is working with and listening to the fishermen he claims.
Thank God common sense seems to be breaking slowly through on Net Zero, ULEZ and other green crap anyway. I can see this being the big popular revolt of the 2020s, like leaving the EU was for the 2010s.
Half of Europe is on fire and the other half is flooded according to the news, so maybe green crap is not quite dea.d.
Tells you everything about how crap the news is and sfs about weather and climate
Are you saying that the whole of Rhodes catches fire every year and reporting it is just a passing fad? Are you not amazed by the photograph here, in peacetime Europe?
'Holidaymaker Emma Marsh said: 'We are currently in Rhodes - we landed today only to be told that our hotel has burnt down. No one from the airline informed us before we flew.";
LOL, but I imagine the tour operators won't refund until the actual hotel booked has caught fire, so you just board the plane and hope a different part of Rhodes is where the problem is. I have made a rule, no advance bookings in the med June July August, but I don't have term dates to stick to
Thank God common sense seems to be breaking slowly through on Net Zero, ULEZ and other green crap anyway. I can see this being the big popular revolt of the 2020s, like leaving the EU was for the 2010s.
Half of Europe is on fire and the other half is flooded according to the news, so maybe green crap is not quite dea.d.
Tells you everything about how crap the news is and sfs about weather and climate
Are you saying that the whole of Rhodes catches fire every year and reporting it is just a passing fad? Are you not amazed by the photograph here, in peacetime Europe?
'Holidaymaker Emma Marsh said: 'We are currently in Rhodes - we landed today only to be told that our hotel has burnt down. No one from the airline informed us before we flew.";
It has been an interesting few weeks here in El Campello. Spanish FIL is increasingly reactionary. Has ranted about how bad the weather is - heat and humidity making them ill, now a pensioner and money tight.
So of course he is going to vote for Vox today. Who will get rid of all the "green crap" being peddled by the socialists. Erm...
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving via a bright but drizzly morning on my island near the Arctic Circle:
Most people assume [Starmer] will win the general election, but we have just seen that the path to power is strewn with trip hazards and Labour stumbled over one of them in Uxbridge.
..both these byelections demonstrated, as did the local elections in May, that explicit collaboration between the opposition parties isn’t required to get anti-Tory voters to mobilise behind the anti-Tory candidate who is best-placed to win.
Sir Keir had to scrap his plans to do a victory lap in west London while the prime minister hurried to the seat to proclaim that this proved that a Tory defeat at the general election was “not a done deal”. It has given the Conservatives a scrap of hope and left Labour with some crucial lessons to learn.
Tory campaign literature suggested that everyone in Uxbridge, not the minority with the dirtiest vehicles, would be paying £12.50 a day to drive. “We had people with a Tesla in the driveway saying it was outrageous that they would have to pay,” reports one Labour campaigner. Labour flailed around when it should have crafted a robust response. Rather than take on the Tory attack, the Labour candidate suggested that the Ulez expansion should be halted, a timorous response which essentially endorsed his opponent’s position.
“Their byelection machine was not so smart,” says a Lib Dem campaigner. “When the Tories come at you, you have to punch back and punch hard. They could have fought the Ulez thing.”
There’s another cause for some Labour disquiet. We know that public alienation from the Conservatives runs deep, but there is still not that much enthusiasm for Sir Keir’s party. Between here and election day, Labour has to convince people that it will be both a responsible government and one that delivers change. It is a tricky balancing act, but if you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the circus.
Keir doesn't know how to fight. Politics is winning the argument. You have to engage with people you don't like and who don't like you, and get them (or the people watching) to change their mind and vote for you. It is hard and not many people can do it, but it's part of the job. If he can't do it he can subcontract the job to a minister or party spokesman or something, but it has to be done.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Thank God common sense seems to be breaking slowly through on Net Zero, ULEZ and other green crap anyway. I can see this being the big popular revolt of the 2020s, like leaving the EU was for the 2010s.
So, what do you suggest is the common sense approach the Tories should take?
That's easy:
The problem in London - both inner and outer - is largely with delivery vehicles. (And then to a lesser extent, other commercial vehicles.)
They drive many more miles than private passenger vehicles, and a £12 charge is little incentive to switch a vehicle that you are driving into the ground anyway.
I would require them all to be electric, or to pay £100. I would also severely curtail the restocking of shops during business hours.
Exactly. If the charge had been targeted against commercial vehicles, rather than roughly the 2nd quintile of JAMs, it would have been much more popular.
Re the prospect of a “green backlash” - yes I can see that happening potentially at a local level, but really only where things have been badly implemented and sold.
I think the overwhelming majority of the country accept the need for things to change on this front, and are willing to make little changes to their lives to help out.
The problem potentially arises where they feel things are imposed on them without adequate consultation, consideration of local issues, support and mitigation.
You don’t win people over by telling them it’s for their own good. The heavy-handedness of those in power on this front (and in the media), which seems to have been exacerbated by Covid, is not a good look.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
If he believes in ULEZ then he can't blame the Blues for it. If he doesn't believe in ULEZ then he shouldn't be advocating for it. "I approve of this policy and it's the Tories fault!" is so incoherent I don't know where to begin.
Thank God common sense seems to be breaking slowly through on Net Zero, ULEZ and other green crap anyway. I can see this being the big popular revolt of the 2020s, like leaving the EU was for the 2010s.
So, what do you suggest is the common sense approach the Tories should take?
That's easy:
The problem in London - both inner and outer - is largely with delivery vehicles. (And then to a lesser extent, other commercial vehicles.)
They drive many more miles than private passenger vehicles, and a £12 charge is little incentive to switch a vehicle that you are driving into the ground anyway.
I would require them all to be electric, or to pay £100. I would also severely curtail the restocking of shops during business hours.
Exactly. If the charge had been targeted against commercial vehicles, rather than roughly the 2nd quintile of JAMs, it would have been much more popular.
More impact, less hassle. But it seems like this was introduced as a revenue-raising exercise to balance TfL's books.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Read the Rawnsley piece above. The Tories told people with Tesla's they would have to pay the ULEZ charge. And Tories in Uxbridge always tell the truth, so it must be fact.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
If he believes in ULEZ then he can't blame the Blues for it. If he doesn't believe in ULEZ then he shouldn't be advocating for it. "I approve of this policy and it's the Tories fault!" is so incoherent I don't know where to begin.
But it's still popssible to say "I approve of this policy whihc is so sensible even the Tories introduced it, but look at what the current lot are doing".
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving via a bright but drizzly morning on my island near the Arctic Circle:
Most people assume [Starmer] will win the general election, but we have just seen that the path to power is strewn with trip hazards and Labour stumbled over one of them in Uxbridge.
..both these byelections demonstrated, as did the local elections in May, that explicit collaboration between the opposition parties isn’t required to get anti-Tory voters to mobilise behind the anti-Tory candidate who is best-placed to win.
Sir Keir had to scrap his plans to do a victory lap in west London while the prime minister hurried to the seat to proclaim that this proved that a Tory defeat at the general election was “not a done deal”. It has given the Conservatives a scrap of hope and left Labour with some crucial lessons to learn.
Tory campaign literature suggested that everyone in Uxbridge, not the minority with the dirtiest vehicles, would be paying £12.50 a day to drive. “We had people with a Tesla in the driveway saying it was outrageous that they would have to pay,” reports one Labour campaigner. Labour flailed around when it should have crafted a robust response. Rather than take on the Tory attack, the Labour candidate suggested that the Ulez expansion should be halted, a timorous response which essentially endorsed his opponent’s position.
“Their byelection machine was not so smart,” says a Lib Dem campaigner. “When the Tories come at you, you have to punch back and punch hard. They could have fought the Ulez thing.”
There’s another cause for some Labour disquiet. We know that public alienation from the Conservatives runs deep, but there is still not that much enthusiasm for Sir Keir’s party. Between here and election day, Labour has to convince people that it will be both a responsible government and one that delivers change. It is a tricky balancing act, but if you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the circus.
Keir doesn't know how to fight. Politics is winning the argument. You have to engage with people you don't like and who don't like you, and get them (or the people watching) to change their mind and vote for you. It is hard and not many people can do it, but it's part of the job. If he can't do it he can subcontract the job to a minister or party spokesman or something, but it has to be done.
They do appear to have been caught flat-footed in Uxbridge, with even their candidate accepting that ULEZ expansion is a bad thing, and have allowed a great result in Selby to be overshadowed.
Doesn’t bode well for a GE campaign, where Starmer’s policy positions and manifesto are going to be dissected and scrutinised by opponents, and he’s going to have to defend himself in debates and discussions.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
While I think the ULEV extension is an error (see my earlier post), I'm not sure where you get 700k vehicles from. I would be very surprised if it was catching more than 50k incremental vehicles on any particular day, with maybe another 100k occasionally affected.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
The numbers are 150k-200k non exempt vehicles in the zone per day which the Mayor pushes, and 700k non exempt vehicles that go into the zone over a year which opponents push.
Both look sensible, neither is right or wrong, but the huge difference causes confusion. From a voting perspective I would suggest the 700k number is more relevant.
First. Climate change is real and requires a global response. The UK is doing quite well. Many countries are not. Second. Policy should not be dictated by pics of forest fires in southern Europe. They occur annually and it is largely chance as to how much disruption and harm they cause.
Thief only a few years ago the UK told everyone to buy diesel cars. I wonder why folk are a tad sceptical about ulez.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Read the Rawnsley piece above. The Tories told people with Tesla's they would have to pay the ULEZ charge. And Tories in Uxbridge always tell the truth, so it must be fact.
The ULEZ extension will have been in place for at least a year before the next election, so reality will disabuse them of that notion looking before they cast a General Election vote.
I was reading that. One unexpected message is that it looks as if political fixation on a small sector of the fishing industry (large pelagic ships, esp. related to Scottish Tory Party constituencies) might have led to screwing the other fisherfolk - this sector of the demersal (?) industry as well as the inshore shellfish/crusty fishers.
Edit. I don't know why I said 'unexpected'. Should know better by now.
As many of you know I live in Banff and Buchan, where local Tory lickspittle David Duguid keeps issuing leaflets crowing about how brilliant Brexit has been for the local Fraserburgh and Peterhead fishing fleets. He is working with and listening to the fishermen he claims.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
While I think the ULEV extension is an error (see my earlier post), I'm not sure where you get 700k vehicles from. I would be very surprised if it was catching more than 50k incremental vehicles on any particular day, with maybe another 100k occasionally affected.
The Mayor’s number for current non-exempt vehicles per day in the expanded zone is 160k. The 700k is an estimate of how many non-exempt vehicles visit the expanded zone over the course of a year.
He does seem to simultaneously think that he can both reduce the number of non-exempt vehicles by 2/3, yet also raise sufficient money to balance the TfL books. Hence the suspicion that a lot more vehicles will become non-exempt in future, and that the target is the occasional visitor who messes up and get fined.
That and the number plate cloners. They’ll be the real winners.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
While I think the ULEV extension is an error (see my earlier post), I'm not sure where you get 700k vehicles from. I would be very surprised if it was catching more than 50k incremental vehicles on any particular day, with maybe another 100k occasionally affected.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
If he believes in ULEZ then he can't blame the Blues for it. If he doesn't believe in ULEZ then he shouldn't be advocating for it. "I approve of this policy and it's the Tories fault!" is so incoherent I don't know where to begin.
Only Boris or Trump could make that mess work, and Khan ain't no Boris or Trump.....
I was reading that. One unexpected message is that it looks as if political fixation on a small sector of the fishing industry (large pelagic ships, esp. related to Scottish Tory Party constituencies) might have led to screwing the other fisherfolk - this sector of the demersal (?) industry as well as the inshore shellfish/crusty fishers.
Edit. I don't know why I said 'unexpected'. Should know better by now.
As many of you know I live in Banff and Buchan, where local Tory lickspittle David Duguid keeps issuing leaflets crowing about how brilliant Brexit has been for the local Fraserburgh and Peterhead fishing fleets. He is working with and listening to the fishermen he claims.
First. Climate change is real and requires a global response. The UK is doing quite well. Many countries are not. Second. Policy should not be dictated by pics of forest fires in southern Europe. They occur annually and it is largely chance as to how much disruption and harm they cause.
Thief only a few years ago the UK told everyone to buy diesel cars. I wonder why folk are a tad sceptical about ulez.
Last. 'Let 's do something' is not a policy.
There is certainly a lot of confusion about cars being bad for "global warming" and bad for "city pollution". That messaging around cars that can be (relatively) fine for global warming but very bad for cities has not got through to Joe and Jane Public at all.
Re the prospect of a “green backlash” - yes I can see that happening potentially at a local level, but really only where things have been badly implemented and sold.
I think the overwhelming majority of the country accept the need for things to change on this front, and are willing to make little changes to their lives to help out.
The problem potentially arises where they feel things are imposed on them without adequate consultation, consideration of local issues, support and mitigation.
You don’t win people over by telling them it’s for their own good. The heavy-handedness of those in power on this front (and in the media), which seems to have been exacerbated by Covid, is not a good look.
Well said. The politicians need to bring the people with them, not just impose these things, especially the many regressive policies associated with environmentalism.
The guy with the £150k car that weighs three tonnes should be paying more in tax, rather than getting free motoring because the car happens to be electric.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Read the Rawnsley piece above. The Tories told people with Tesla's they would have to pay the ULEZ charge. And Tories in Uxbridge always tell the truth, so it must be fact.
The ULEZ extension will have been in place for at least a year before the next election, so reality will disabuse them of that notion looking before they cast a General Election vote.
Regardless of Tory deceptions about ULEZ (this is politics) there is a lesson from the 2017 election T May disaster that Labour didn't quite get in Uxbridge. T May went from massive majority prospect to NOM in hours by: having two policies simultaneously on social care, announcing without warm up a policy which might cost someone a lot of money in the future, and might be you, lying about the change of tack and communications incompetence.
I suspect ULEZ cost Labour far more votes than just those who might be directly affected. That's how votes work.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving via a bright but drizzly morning on my island near the Arctic Circle:
Most people assume [Starmer] will win the general election, but we have just seen that the path to power is strewn with trip hazards and Labour stumbled over one of them in Uxbridge.
..both these byelections demonstrated, as did the local elections in May, that explicit collaboration between the opposition parties isn’t required to get anti-Tory voters to mobilise behind the anti-Tory candidate who is best-placed to win.
Sir Keir had to scrap his plans to do a victory lap in west London while the prime minister hurried to the seat to proclaim that this proved that a Tory defeat at the general election was “not a done deal”. It has given the Conservatives a scrap of hope and left Labour with some crucial lessons to learn.
Tory campaign literature suggested that everyone in Uxbridge, not the minority with the dirtiest vehicles, would be paying £12.50 a day to drive. “We had people with a Tesla in the driveway saying it was outrageous that they would have to pay,” reports one Labour campaigner. Labour flailed around when it should have crafted a robust response. Rather than take on the Tory attack, the Labour candidate suggested that the Ulez expansion should be halted, a timorous response which essentially endorsed his opponent’s position.
“Their byelection machine was not so smart,” says a Lib Dem campaigner. “When the Tories come at you, you have to punch back and punch hard. They could have fought the Ulez thing.”
There’s another cause for some Labour disquiet. We know that public alienation from the Conservatives runs deep, but there is still not that much enthusiasm for Sir Keir’s party. Between here and election day, Labour has to convince people that it will be both a responsible government and one that delivers change. It is a tricky balancing act, but if you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the circus.
Keir doesn't know how to fight. Politics is winning the argument. You have to engage with people you don't like and who don't like you, and get them (or the people watching) to change their mind and vote for you. It is hard and not many people can do it, but it's part of the job. If he can't do it he can subcontract the job to a minister or party spokesman or something, but it has to be done.
They do appear to have been caught flat-footed in Uxbridge, with even their candidate accepting that ULEZ expansion is a bad thing, and have allowed a great result in Selby to be overshadowed.
Doesn’t bode well for a GE campaign, where Starmer’s policy positions and manifesto are going to be dissected and scrutinised by opponents, and he’s going to have to defend himself in debates and discussions.
Yep. Which is why we’re not going to have a Labour blowout IMHO (I still think small majority, and they’ll have done well to get that to be fair).
The next GE campaign is going to be dirty as hell and the cynicism we are going to see from the Tories is going to be breathtaking. They will throw everything at Labour in the hope that something sticks, fair or unfair, real or imagined.
In 2010, I recall a lot of eyebrows being raised at the somewhat punchy lines of attack from Labour in terms of the Tories cutting benefits. It was a campaign designed to make people think twice - yes the Tories are getting ready for power but Do.You.Really.Want.Them.There? I think this was a big reason Cameron fell short in the end. We are now 13 years on from that - and in the post truth era. The sort of things we saw from Labour in 2010 are going to look positively quaint.
Thank God common sense seems to be breaking slowly through on Net Zero, ULEZ and other green crap anyway. I can see this being the big popular revolt of the 2020s, like leaving the EU was for the 2010s.
Half of Europe is on fire and the other half is flooded according to the news, so maybe green crap is not quite dea.d.
Tells you everything about how crap the news is and sfs about weather and climate
Are you saying that the whole of Rhodes catches fire every year and reporting it is just a passing fad? Are you not amazed by the photograph here, in peacetime Europe?
'Holidaymaker Emma Marsh said: 'We are currently in Rhodes - we landed today only to be told that our hotel has burnt down. No one from the airline informed us before we flew.";
LOL, but I imagine the tour operators won't refund until the actual hotel booked has caught fire, so you just board the plane and hope a different part of Rhodes is where the problem is. I have made a rule, no advance bookings in the med June July August, but I don't have term dates to stick to
I simply don't travel in the school holidays and don't go to the Med in midsummer as it is already too bloody hot. I had a pleasant time in the Baltics and Finland in June and I am next going away in September
I once led a boarding party on a North Sea trawler as a pink cheeked Sub Lt. It seemed like the most squalid and uncomfortable way possible to go to sea with more than half the crew being more than half drunk at 1pm.
Good morning
As someone closely bound to the NE Scotland fishing community, and having been to sea in a seine net boat skippered by my nieces grandfather, you do the fishermen a great disservice in your comment
For 5 days we battled the North Sea with high seas hauling the net from a very low stern gunwale with the waves high above us and then way below us. It was incredibly hard work and dangerous and I did not see any alcohol the whole time we were away
Fishermen deserve great respect, and having experienced the pain of family members drowned at sea and their bodies lost in the deep, I will always jump to the defence of these brave men
I would just comment that fishermen have always been anti EU and there are increased opportunities from this year
I note with some surprise that the Barbie movie has a trans person it it, as "Doctor Barbie". Did anybody notice? I am not planning on seeing the movie and so cannot tell.
I note with some further surprise that it has Ncuti Gatwa in it, as "Ken". They missed a trick by not calling him "Doctor Ken"...
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
If he believes in ULEZ then he can't blame the Blues for it. If he doesn't believe in ULEZ then he shouldn't be advocating for it. "I approve of this policy and it's the Tories fault!" is so incoherent I don't know where to begin.
But it's still popssible to say "I approve of this policy whihc is so sensible even the Tories introduced it, but look at what the current lot are doing".
First. Climate change is real and requires a global response. The UK is doing quite well. Many countries are not. Second. Policy should not be dictated by pics of forest fires in southern Europe. They occur annually and it is largely chance as to how much disruption and harm they cause.
Thief only a few years ago the UK told everyone to buy diesel cars. I wonder why folk are a tad sceptical about ulez.
Last. 'Let 's do something' is not a policy.
There is certainly a lot of confusion about cars being bad for "global warming" and bad for "city pollution". That messaging around cars that can be (relatively) fine for global warming but very bad for cities has not got through to Joe and Jane Public at all.
Well, I am not confused and your point is 25 years out of date. Diesels are not relatively fine for global warming they just looked marginally better than petrol cars.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Read the Rawnsley piece above. The Tories told people with Tesla's they would have to pay the ULEZ charge. And Tories in Uxbridge always tell the truth, so it must be fact.
The ULEZ extension will have been in place for at least a year before the next election, so reality will disabuse them of that notion looking before they cast a General Election vote.
I am not so sure
The scheme is in the courts and we have the ridiculous situation of Starmer demanding Khan changes policy
It seems Starmer is upset about Uxbridge, and rather than defend the policy he wants to change it because it is unpopular
I really fear Starmer is far from a leader, as he either fence sits (see doctors) or reverses any unpopular policy
He wants to be liked too much, and that is not possible for someone who has to make hard decisions
First. Climate change is real and requires a global response. The UK is doing quite well. Many countries are not. Second. Policy should not be dictated by pics of forest fires in southern Europe. They occur annually and it is largely chance as to how much disruption and harm they cause.
Thief only a few years ago the UK told everyone to buy diesel cars. I wonder why folk are a tad sceptical about ulez.
Last. 'Let 's do something' is not a policy.
There is certainly a lot of confusion about cars being bad for "global warming" and bad for "city pollution". That messaging around cars that can be (relatively) fine for global warming but very bad for cities has not got through to Joe and Jane Public at all.
I am surprised that there are apparently so many Londoners with non-compliant diesels. While diesel was cheaper for a while, and they do better mileage, the cars cost more and are more expensive to repair and service. I once looked into getting a diesel and it would have only made sense if I drove more than 20,000 miles a year. And I would have thought Londoners would tend to be lower-mileage drivers. Maybe a lot of people ended up getting a diesel 2 or 3 years older than the petrol car they could have afforded, and that is where the problem is
I was reading that. One unexpected message is that it looks as if political fixation on a small sector of the fishing industry (large pelagic ships, esp. related to Scottish Tory Party constituencies) might have led to screwing the other fisherfolk - this sector of the demersal (?) industry as well as the inshore shellfish/crusty fishers.
Edit. I don't know why I said 'unexpected'. Should know better by now.
As many of you know I live in Banff and Buchan, where local Tory lickspittle David Duguid keeps issuing leaflets crowing about how brilliant Brexit has been for the local Fraserburgh and Peterhead fishing fleets. He is working with and listening to the fishermen he claims.
Their weekly landings show cod typically up 60% in recent weeks as the new arrangements come into force.
But hey, whatever.
Doesn't speak for the other fisherfolk, though. Theirs is the Tory-pampered sector. And in any case their boss is the one complaining in that P&J piece.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving via a bright but drizzly morning on my island near the Arctic Circle:
Most people assume [Starmer] will win the general election, but we have just seen that the path to power is strewn with trip hazards and Labour stumbled over one of them in Uxbridge.
..both these byelections demonstrated, as did the local elections in May, that explicit collaboration between the opposition parties isn’t required to get anti-Tory voters to mobilise behind the anti-Tory candidate who is best-placed to win.
Sir Keir had to scrap his plans to do a victory lap in west London while the prime minister hurried to the seat to proclaim that this proved that a Tory defeat at the general election was “not a done deal”. It has given the Conservatives a scrap of hope and left Labour with some crucial lessons to learn.
Tory campaign literature suggested that everyone in Uxbridge, not the minority with the dirtiest vehicles, would be paying £12.50 a day to drive. “We had people with a Tesla in the driveway saying it was outrageous that they would have to pay,” reports one Labour campaigner. Labour flailed around when it should have crafted a robust response. Rather than take on the Tory attack, the Labour candidate suggested that the Ulez expansion should be halted, a timorous response which essentially endorsed his opponent’s position.
“Their byelection machine was not so smart,” says a Lib Dem campaigner. “When the Tories come at you, you have to punch back and punch hard. They could have fought the Ulez thing.”
There’s another cause for some Labour disquiet. We know that public alienation from the Conservatives runs deep, but there is still not that much enthusiasm for Sir Keir’s party. Between here and election day, Labour has to convince people that it will be both a responsible government and one that delivers change. It is a tricky balancing act, but if you can’t ride two horses at once, you shouldn’t be in the circus.
Keir doesn't know how to fight. Politics is winning the argument. You have to engage with people you don't like and who don't like you, and get them (or the people watching) to change their mind and vote for you. It is hard and not many people can do it, but it's part of the job. If he can't do it he can subcontract the job to a minister or party spokesman or something, but it has to be done.
They do appear to have been caught flat-footed in Uxbridge, with even their candidate accepting that ULEZ expansion is a bad thing, and have allowed a great result in Selby to be overshadowed.
Doesn’t bode well for a GE campaign, where Starmer’s policy positions and manifesto are going to be dissected and scrutinised by opponents, and he’s going to have to defend himself in debates and discussions.
Yep. Which is why we’re not going to have a Labour blowout IMHO (I still think small majority, and they’ll have done well to get that to be fair).
The next GE campaign is going to be dirty as hell and the cynicism we are going to see from the Tories is going to be breathtaking. They will throw everything at Labour in the hope that something sticks, fair or unfair, real or imagined.
We are already seeing the most cynical and opportunistic Labour Party ever, even beating Blair's record, so it would be no more than they deserve.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
The pitch: "British person! If you vote for Leave you'll get higher wages for your shit job!"
The reality "British version! We refuse to offer you higher wages and will instead import somebody and throw you on the scrapheap. Serve you right for believing us!"
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
First. Climate change is real and requires a global response. The UK is doing quite well. Many countries are not. Second. Policy should not be dictated by pics of forest fires in southern Europe. They occur annually and it is largely chance as to how much disruption and harm they cause.
Thief only a few years ago the UK told everyone to buy diesel cars. I wonder why folk are a tad sceptical about ulez.
Last. 'Let 's do something' is not a policy.
There is certainly a lot of confusion about cars being bad for "global warming" and bad for "city pollution". That messaging around cars that can be (relatively) fine for global warming but very bad for cities has not got through to Joe and Jane Public at all.
I am surprised that there are apparently so many Londoners with non-compliant diesels. While diesel was cheaper for a while, and they do better mileage, the cars cost more and are more expensive to repair and service. I once looked into getting a diesel and it would have only made sense if I drove more than 20,000 miles a year. And I would have thought Londoners would tend to be lower-mileage drivers. Maybe a lot of people ended up getting a diesel 2 or 3 years older than the petrol car they could have afforded, and that is where the problem is
Trucks and vans and stuff usually don't have a petrol option
Asda and Morrisons paid zero corporation tax last year after buyouts Debt-fuelled private equity structure cuts bill from £200m to nothing
Private equity backed supermarkets Asda and Morrisons did not pay a penny of corporation tax last year, as new disclosures shed a light on how buyout firms minimise tax by loading their companies up with debt.
In the decade before they were bought out by their current private equity owners, they paid an average of more than £200 million of corporation tax a year between them.
But since their buyouts, their profits have been reduced to losses, mostly due to hefty interest payments on the new debts loaded onto their balance sheets. As corporation tax is only levied on profits, they pay nothing.
Last year, Tesco and Sainsbury, who are more conventionally financed, paid corporation tax of £247 million and £120 million respectively.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
While I think the ULEV extension is an error (see my earlier post), I'm not sure where you get 700k vehicles from. I would be very surprised if it was catching more than 50k incremental vehicles on any particular day, with maybe another 100k occasionally affected.
The Mayor’s number for current non-exempt vehicles per day in the expanded zone is 160k. The 700k is an estimate of how many non-exempt vehicles visit the expanded zone over the course of a year.
He does seem to simultaneously think that he can both reduce the number of non-exempt vehicles by 2/3, yet also raise sufficient money to balance the TfL books. Hence the suspicion that a lot more vehicles will become non-exempt in future, and that the target is the occasional visitor who messes up and get fined.
That and the number plate cloners. They’ll be the real winners.
It is worth remembering, though, that those numbers were released in early 2022, and refer to the cars in London in 2021. They are therefore at least two, and possibly more like three, years out of date.
I very much doubt that the ULEZ will raise anywhere near the expected revenues.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
Thank God common sense seems to be breaking slowly through on Net Zero, ULEZ and other green crap anyway. I can see this being the big popular revolt of the 2020s, like leaving the EU was for the 2010s.
So, what do you suggest is the common sense approach the Tories should take?
Be nice if they concentrated on the biggest polluters etc rather than scatter gunning the poor and scamming them for even more money whilst pretending to be trying to save the world. They don't ever seem to bother their chums much.
Asda and Morrisons paid zero corporation tax last year after buyouts Debt-fuelled private equity structure cuts bill from £200m to nothing
Private equity backed supermarkets Asda and Morrisons did not pay a penny of corporation tax last year, as new disclosures shed a light on how buyout firms minimise tax by loading their companies up with debt.
In the decade before they were bought out by their current private equity owners, they paid an average of more than £200 million of corporation tax a year between them.
But since their buyouts, their profits have been reduced to losses, mostly due to hefty interest payments on the new debts loaded onto their balance sheets. As corporation tax is only levied on profits, they pay nothing.
Last year, Tesco and Sainsbury, who are more conventionally financed, paid corporation tax of £247 million and £120 million respectively.
Normally, I'm got keen on management gobbledygook, but the Kubler-Ross Change Curve seems relevant here;
It seems pretty clear that we're somewhere on the left of the graph right now, not helped by some weaponising of fear and ignorance on the right. (Not blaming those who don't know, definitely blaming those who exploit it).
Khan's hope is that London will make it to the right of the graph by next May; I think he's probably right.
(And yes, Brexit optimists are hoping the same thing will happen for their policy. I think that's different, because the K-R curve works for things that are painful transitions but better in the long run. At some point, you have to consider the possibility that there ain't going to be an upwave.)
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
There's probably some truth in both your and noneoftheabove's comments. It's not either or, and the policy could certainly have been both better implemented and better spun.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
The bigger picture being to drive the wages of British workers down even further to enable a growing population of pensioners with paid-of mortgages and index-linked pensions to get cheaper lattes? That bigger picture? You do realise that other Brits have a function other than continually paying taxes to keep you alive?
I recognise the point of supporting our old people thru their twilight years, but there is such a thing as taking the piss, sir.
The majority Brexit voting crew ! I still can’t believe so many in agriculture and fisheries voted against their own interests .
So many farmers and fishermen knew with detailed evidence to back it up that the CAP and CFP were damaging them. Brexit offered them freedom from the paperwork and restrictions. And remember that the deal we were going to get (the easiest deal in history) would ensure we could still trade.
I don't blame desperate people who had seen their industry screwed by EU rules for voting to leave, especially when morons told them such attractive lies.
The problem is that we then got bigger morons to do the deal. Well, not do a deal. And they didn't have a clue what they were asking for, talking about, doing.
"When Scotland’s fishing industry big hitters made their displeasure clear at the August 2021 meeting in Fraserburgh, Johnson claimed incredulity, according to two people present. “Frosty didn’t tell me that!” he said, referring to David Frost, the U.K.’s chief Brexit negotiator and one of his closest political allies. “Frosty said it was a good deal!” "
Normally, I'm got keen on management gobbledygook, but the Kubler-Ross Change Curve seems relevant here;
It seems pretty clear that we're somewhere on the left of the graph right now, not helped by some weaponising of fear and ignorance on the right. (Not blaming those who don't know, definitely blaming those who exploit it).
Khan's hope is that London will make it to the right of the graph by next May; I think he's probably right.
(And yes, Brexit optimists are hoping the same thing will happen for their policy. I think that's different, because the K-R curve works for things that are painful transitions but better in the long run. At some point, you have to consider the possibility that there ain't going to be an upwave.)
It’s now clear there are no upsides to Brexit. We no longer have a minister for Brexit opportunities, because that just served as a reminder that there aren’t any.
Brexit will act as a shackle on the British economy until we finally return to the EU, whenever that will be. Obviously, the sooner the better.
Asda and Morrisons paid zero corporation tax last year after buyouts Debt-fuelled private equity structure cuts bill from £200m to nothing
Private equity backed supermarkets Asda and Morrisons did not pay a penny of corporation tax last year, as new disclosures shed a light on how buyout firms minimise tax by loading their companies up with debt.
In the decade before they were bought out by their current private equity owners, they paid an average of more than £200 million of corporation tax a year between them.
But since their buyouts, their profits have been reduced to losses, mostly due to hefty interest payments on the new debts loaded onto their balance sheets. As corporation tax is only levied on profits, they pay nothing.
Last year, Tesco and Sainsbury, who are more conventionally financed, paid corporation tax of £247 million and £120 million respectively.
I watched United v Arsenal last night, and thought United well deserved their 2 - 0 win and also a rather silly exhibition penalty shoot out 5 - 3
The question is who did the best deal, United for Mount at £55 million or Arsenal for Rice at £100 million
On last nights performance very much Mount who was excellent
Interesting watching the United pre-season squad with various demics still wheeled out to try and raise their sale price. Sancho and the idiot Maguire being front and centre.
TBH I wouldn't play Maguire. Surely he *lowers* his price every time he ineptly tries to play.
Normally, I'm got keen on management gobbledygook, but the Kubler-Ross Change Curve seems relevant here;
It seems pretty clear that we're somewhere on the left of the graph right now, not helped by some weaponising of fear and ignorance on the right. (Not blaming those who don't know, definitely blaming those who exploit it).
Khan's hope is that London will make it to the right of the graph by next May; I think he's probably right.
(And yes, Brexit optimists are hoping the same thing will happen for their policy. I think that's different, because the K-R curve works for things that are painful transitions but better in the long run. At some point, you have to consider the possibility that there ain't going to be an upwave.)
It’s now clear there are no upsides to Brexit. We no longer have a minister for Brexit opportunities, because that just served as a reminder that there aren’t any.
Brexit will act as a shackle on the British economy until we finally return to the EU, whenever that will be. Obviously, the sooner the better.
It's certainly looking that way.
Which is why I dislike being in the sort of staff meeting where the Kubler Ross chart is shown. In the early stages of a new initiative, it is possible that minion-level pushback is a Luddite resistance to change. But it's also possible that it's because the initiative being pushed is a really bad idea, and the K-R curve doesn't let us tell those apart.
So, three years until every petrol or diesel car becomes non-exempt.
They wouldn’t have spend the hundreds of millions on the surveillance system, for a scheme that was only going to generate money for three years.
Why not? The ULEZ fees and fines pay for the system and the scrappage and a bit to spare.
Polluting vehicles that we want to get off the road are removed sooner than by natural wastage and there's no net cost to the taxpayer- the polluter pays and all that.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
It's good and bad, isn't it? Good for rich coffee drinkers who like to palm the kids off cheaply, but bad because it recognises that multinational companies like shite "coffee" houses love cheap labour. On the flip side, it should mean that our younger folk should get the chance to work in the EU a bit easier.
10am: We do have progress, of sorts: there will be a pitch inspection at 11am (provided it doesn't start raining, of course). There was heavy overnight train and the outfield has taken the brunt of it. Our correspondents at the ground can't agree exactly how dank it is currently, but seems like there's some mizzle in the air at the very least. Anyway, go and make yourself a brew, then sit tight for more news
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
The bigger picture being to drive the wages of British workers down even further to enable a growing population of pensioners with paid-of mortgages and index-linked pensions to get cheaper lattes? That bigger picture? You do realise that other Brits have a function other than continually paying taxes to keep you alive?
I recognise the point of supporting our old people thru their twilight years, but there is such a thing as taking the piss, sir.
That's not very nice for a Sunday morning but as far as any scheme to help growth is concerned it should be supported
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
It's good and bad, isn't it? Good for rich coffee drinkers who like to palm the kids off cheaply, but bad because it recognises that multinational companies like shite "coffee" houses love cheap labour. On the flip side, it should mean that our younger folk should get the chance to work in the EU a bit easier.
What happened to pushing up the wages of British baristas?
Off topic, a little piece of interesting social commentary here, which touches if passingly on a few topical social and political issues, as well as being the counter-reaction to viewcode’s pointed-but not-without-truth post above:
So, three years until every petrol or diesel car becomes non-exempt.
They wouldn’t have spend the hundreds of millions on the surveillance system, for a scheme that was only going to generate money for three years.
I thought the point was to improve air quality, not to generate a profit? If the former is achieved - job done.
Maybe Khan actually cares about the 4,000 odd people who die in London each year from air pollution?
This has echoes of the GRR bill for Sturgeon. I think we can over-analyse stuff on PB. The politicians that I've met have to suppress the fact they genuinely care about some issues.
So, three years until every petrol or diesel car becomes non-exempt.
They wouldn’t have spend the hundreds of millions on the surveillance system, for a scheme that was only going to generate money for three years.
Why not? The ULEZ fees and fines pay for the system and the scrappage and a bit to spare.
Polluting vehicles that we want to get off the road are removed sooner than by natural wastage and there's no net cost to the taxpayer- the polluter pays and all that.
But that isn’t what’s happening. The scrappage scheme is only £25m, and you have to live inside the zone to claim anything. Those who live just outside, in places like, umm, Uxbridge, get screwed.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
The bigger picture being to drive the wages of British workers down even further to enable a growing population of pensioners with paid-of mortgages and index-linked pensions to get cheaper lattes? That bigger picture? You do realise that other Brits have a function other than continually paying taxes to keep you alive?
I recognise the point of supporting our old people thru their twilight years, but there is such a thing as taking the piss, sir.
That's not very nice for a Sunday morning but as far as any scheme to help growth is concerned it should be supported
It is a bit odd, though.
Stopping businesses from importing low paid workers and the resulting increases in pay at the bottom was one of the few plausible Brexit benefits the government has been able to point to.
I watched United v Arsenal last night, and thought United well deserved their 2 - 0 win and also a rather silly exhibition penalty shoot out 5 - 3
The question is who did the best deal, United for Mount at £55 million or Arsenal for Rice at £100 million
On last nights performance very much Mount who was excellent
Interesting watching the United pre-season squad with various demics still wheeled out to try and raise their sale price. Sancho and the idiot Maguire being front and centre.
TBH I wouldn't play Maguire. Surely he *lowers* his price every time he ineptly tries to play.
Actually I have been quite impressed with some of the youngsters and Sancho and Maguire played quite well v Arsenal
So, three years until every petrol or diesel car becomes non-exempt.
They wouldn’t have spend the hundreds of millions on the surveillance system, for a scheme that was only going to generate money for three years.
Why not? The ULEZ fees and fines pay for the system and the scrappage and a bit to spare.
Polluting vehicles that we want to get off the road are removed sooner than by natural wastage and there's no net cost to the taxpayer- the polluter pays and all that.
But that isn’t what’s happening. The scrappage scheme is only £25m, and you have to live inside the zone to claim anything. Those who live just outside, in places like, umm, Uxbridge, get screwed.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Read the Rawnsley piece above. The Tories told people with Tesla's they would have to pay the ULEZ charge. And Tories in Uxbridge always tell the truth, so it must be fact.
The ULEZ extension will have been in place for at least a year before the next election, so reality will disabuse them of that notion looking before they cast a General Election vote.
I don't think it will. People aren't stupid.
The ULEZ has been introduced as a revenue-raising measure. When all the cars are compliant, and it isn't raising any revenue, they will tighten the rules.
Once all cars are electric and have zero tailpipe emissions they aren't likely to take down all the cameras and give up on the revenue. They'll want to use the existing infrastructure to introduce a road-pricing scheme for all cars.
Asda and Morrisons paid zero corporation tax last year after buyouts Debt-fuelled private equity structure cuts bill from £200m to nothing
Private equity backed supermarkets Asda and Morrisons did not pay a penny of corporation tax last year, as new disclosures shed a light on how buyout firms minimise tax by loading their companies up with debt.
In the decade before they were bought out by their current private equity owners, they paid an average of more than £200 million of corporation tax a year between them.
But since their buyouts, their profits have been reduced to losses, mostly due to hefty interest payments on the new debts loaded onto their balance sheets. As corporation tax is only levied on profits, they pay nothing.
Last year, Tesco and Sainsbury, who are more conventionally financed, paid corporation tax of £247 million and £120 million respectively.
I've been chatting again to my London born and resident brother. Ulez is a stupid action by Sadiq Khan. Not necessarily the principle of the thing but the Draconian manner in which it has been implemented.
Would it really have made THAT much difference to give people, say, 10 years to make the switch? Answer = no. And there should have been far more consultation.
And the outer areas are not so well served for public transport as the inner ring.
Politically it's phenomenally stupid. Typical arrogant socialism. Always happens. They never learn.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
While I think the ULEV extension is an error (see my earlier post), I'm not sure where you get 700k vehicles from. I would be very surprised if it was catching more than 50k incremental vehicles on any particular day, with maybe another 100k occasionally affected.
The Mayor’s number for current non-exempt vehicles per day in the expanded zone is 160k. The 700k is an estimate of how many non-exempt vehicles visit the expanded zone over the course of a year.
He does seem to simultaneously think that he can both reduce the number of non-exempt vehicles by 2/3, yet also raise sufficient money to balance the TfL books. Hence the suspicion that a lot more vehicles will become non-exempt in future, and that the target is the occasional visitor who messes up and get fined.
That and the number plate cloners. They’ll be the real winners.
It is worth remembering, though, that those numbers were released in early 2022, and refer to the cars in London in 2021. They are therefore at least two, and possibly more like three, years out of date.
I very much doubt that the ULEZ will raise anywhere near the expected revenues.
So, three years until every petrol or diesel car becomes non-exempt.
They wouldn’t have spend the hundreds of millions on the surveillance system, for a scheme that was only going to generate money for three years.
Why not? The ULEZ fees and fines pay for the system and the scrappage and a bit to spare.
Polluting vehicles that we want to get off the road are removed sooner than by natural wastage and there's no net cost to the taxpayer- the polluter pays and all that.
But that isn’t what’s happening. The scrappage scheme is only £25m, and you have to live inside the zone to claim anything. Those who live just outside, in places like, umm, Uxbridge, get screwed.
Uxbridge is in Greater London, much as it resents it. So it's eligible.
There's a lot about London you're not picking up from the distance of the sandpit.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
It's good and bad, isn't it? Good for rich coffee drinkers who like to palm the kids off cheaply, but bad because it recognises that multinational companies like shite "coffee" houses love cheap labour. On the flip side, it should mean that our younger folk should get the chance to work in the EU a bit easier.
What happened to pushing up the wages of British baristas?
That's too difficult. It'd mean upsetting big business, and that's not the done thing.
Asda and Morrisons paid zero corporation tax last year after buyouts Debt-fuelled private equity structure cuts bill from £200m to nothing
Private equity backed supermarkets Asda and Morrisons did not pay a penny of corporation tax last year, as new disclosures shed a light on how buyout firms minimise tax by loading their companies up with debt.
In the decade before they were bought out by their current private equity owners, they paid an average of more than £200 million of corporation tax a year between them.
But since their buyouts, their profits have been reduced to losses, mostly due to hefty interest payments on the new debts loaded onto their balance sheets. As corporation tax is only levied on profits, they pay nothing.
Last year, Tesco and Sainsbury, who are more conventionally financed, paid corporation tax of £247 million and £120 million respectively.
I've been chatting again to my London born and resident brother. Ulez is a stupid action by Sadiq Khan. Not necessarily the principle of the thing but the Draconian manner in which it has been implemented.
Would it really have made THAT much difference to give people, say, 10 years to make the switch? Answer = no. And there should have been far more consultation.
And the outer areas are not so well served for public transport as the inner ring.
Politically it's phenomenally stupid. Typical arrogant socialism. Always happens. They never learn.
As opposed to the earth-shattering humility of Trump and Bozo.
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Read the Rawnsley piece above. The Tories told people with Tesla's they would have to pay the ULEZ charge. And Tories in Uxbridge always tell the truth, so it must be fact.
The ULEZ extension will have been in place for at least a year before the next election, so reality will disabuse them of that notion looking before they cast a General Election vote.
I don't think it will. People aren't stupid.
The ULEZ has been introduced as a revenue-raising measure. When all the cars are compliant, and it isn't raising any revenue, they will tighten the rules.
Once all cars are electric and have zero tailpipe emissions they aren't likely to take down all the cameras and give up on the revenue. They'll want to use the existing infrastructure to introduce a road-pricing scheme for all cars.
That’s a different argument though. You can disagree with a tax for tax’s sake while still agreeing with the principle that people should have their externalities taxed appropriately.
My old car is ULEZ compliant but I absolutely could not afford a new one right now but honestly I feel incredibly guilty driving it these days.
Thank God common sense seems to be breaking slowly through on Net Zero, ULEZ and other green crap anyway. I can see this being the big popular revolt of the 2020s, like leaving the EU was for the 2010s.
Half of Europe is on fire and the other half is flooded according to the news, so maybe green crap is not quite dea.d.
Tells you everything about how crap the news is and sfs about weather and climate
Are you saying that the whole of Rhodes catches fire every year and reporting it is just a passing fad? Are you not amazed by the photograph here, in peacetime Europe?
'Holidaymaker Emma Marsh said: 'We are currently in Rhodes - we landed today only to be told that our hotel has burnt down. No one from the airline informed us before we flew.";
LOL, but I imagine the tour operators won't refund until the actual hotel booked has caught fire, so you just board the plane and hope a different part of Rhodes is where the problem is. I have made a rule, no advance bookings in the med June July August, but I don't have term dates to stick to
I simply don't travel in the school holidays and don't go to the Med in midsummer as it is already too bloody hot. I had a pleasant time in the Baltics and Finland in June and I am next going away in September
I fear the north Norwegian riviera still has some heavy lifting to do, however…
Even if Comrade Jez splits the left vote, it's going to be hard for the Conservatives to take advantage.
In 2021, Shaun Bailey got 35% in the first round. That was at peak Vaccine Hero Boris, and Bailey was a better candidate than Hall. (Who has already managed to pose for a stupid photo on the front page of the Standard and caused the Conservatives to complain to London's newspaper, which is never a wise thing to do.)
We're not far off a scenario where the vote to the left of the Conservatives could be split into three equal portions and still come out ahead of Hall.
Not sure that is right. Bailey was 4.7% behind. Corbyn will win a lot more than 5% if he stands, I would guess 15-20% most likely. That feels like enough to allow the Tories to win if they get around 30% to me. Sounds plausible.
I don’t think the Tories will get 30% in the mayoral when they’re on less than that nationally.
Uxbridge (a 6.7% swing to Labour by the way) has gone to everyone’s heads.
The economy is bad and people feel like there is no solution and one party has been in power a long time. Nationally that is a disaster for the Tories. In London, some blame the Tories (fairly) others blame the Mayor (unfairly), so less so.
Khan is a bit shit. He is taking all of the blame for ULEZ, yet the decision to impose it was made by Shapps Green. So he should have been banging that particular drum hard. Instead he's taking the blame.
Not sure that works. He can't champion ULEZ at the same time as say, not my fault, blame the Tories for it.
His mistakes are around implementation, leaving it fiscally regressive, and a lack of listening, persuasion and compromise, three characteristics that are sorely missing from contemporary UK politics across the board.
No to both. The mistakes lay with the muppet running Labour's Uxbridge campaign who decided not to counter Tories telling voters they'd all have to pay, when in fact most vehicles are exempt. Years ago John Prescott complained about this idea, then presumably due to Mandelson and/or Campbell, that you must never refute your opponent's charges because that is letting the Tories "set the agenda". Well, great unless it means losing an election.
I think there is a lot of electoral denial on here from normally astute posters.
That 90% are not impacted is pretty irrelevant to the electoral damage. These are low turnout elections decided by not that much. The first round gap between Khan and Bailey was 120,000 votes. If 700,000 vehicles are starting to get hit by charges, that will be a big problem. Now of course the Tories are so bad nationally it may not matter but it is dismissed far too casually.
700,000 vehicles! Where on earth are you getting that from.
Read the Rawnsley piece above. The Tories told people with Tesla's they would have to pay the ULEZ charge. And Tories in Uxbridge always tell the truth, so it must be fact.
The ULEZ extension will have been in place for at least a year before the next election, so reality will disabuse them of that notion looking before they cast a General Election vote.
I don't think it will. People aren't stupid.
The ULEZ has been introduced as a revenue-raising measure. When all the cars are compliant, and it isn't raising any revenue, they will tighten the rules.
Once all cars are electric and have zero tailpipe emissions they aren't likely to take down all the cameras and give up on the revenue. They'll want to use the existing infrastructure to introduce a road-pricing scheme for all cars.
Yes - it's a Pigouvian tax. Polluter pays for the negative externality. That well known green loony Margaret Thatcher was a big fan.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
It's good and bad, isn't it? Good for rich coffee drinkers who like to palm the kids off cheaply, but bad because it recognises that multinational companies like shite "coffee" houses love cheap labour. On the flip side, it should mean that our younger folk should get the chance to work in the EU a bit easier.
What happened to pushing up the wages of British baristas?
That's too difficult. It'd mean upsetting big business, and that's not the done thing.
Big businesses don't use the services of many baristas. It's median voters who do that. Much as it may stun those who still live in the 90s, median voters drink takeaway coffee nowadays.
I've been chatting again to my London born and resident brother. Ulez is a stupid action by Sadiq Khan. Not necessarily the principle of the thing but the Draconian manner in which it has been implemented.
Would it really have made THAT much difference to give people, say, 10 years to make the switch? Answer = no. And there should have been far more consultation.
And the outer areas are not so well served for public transport as the inner ring.
Politically it's phenomenally stupid. Typical arrogant socialism. Always happens. They never learn.
So, 10 years is time for Ella Kissi-Debrah to be conceived, born and die of air pollution, so it depends on the value of THAT much difference.
Thousands of young European waiters, baristas and au pairs could be allowed to come to the UK for two years under plans to plug gaps in the British workforce.
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
The bigger picture being to drive the wages of British workers down even further to enable a growing population of pensioners with paid-of mortgages and index-linked pensions to get cheaper lattes? That bigger picture? You do realise that other Brits have a function other than continually paying taxes to keep you alive?
I recognise the point of supporting our old people thru their twilight years, but there is such a thing as taking the piss, sir.
That's not very nice for a Sunday morning but as far as any scheme to help growth is concerned it should be supported
Fair point about the personal stuff, but widening it out to the bigger picture, consider this. People have lives, they are individuals with hopes and dreams and whatnot. They are not just economic units to be used up and abandoned, disposed of if a cheaper solution is to be found.
The economic model built by the Conservatives post-Brexit is a machine designed to make workers work harder and harder for less and less pay in order to funnel more and more taxes upwards to wealthy older people and outwards to foreign investors. UK people aren't governed, they are strip-mined. If the fruits of the growth aren't directed to the people who generate it, then what is the point? It's not a Government, it's an occupation force.
ULEZ is something I fully support, but....over the next few years, most sane people who regularly have to go through the zone or actually live in the zone will get a ULEZ compliant car. What will London do next to generate the revenue that it loses? As far as I can see, it makes about 200 million quid a year, which is a lot of money to replace .
ULEZ is something I fully support, but....over the next few years, most sane people who regularly have to go through the zone or actually live in the zone will get a ULEZ compliant car. What will London do next to generate the revenue that it loses? As far as I can see, it makes about 200 million quid a year, which is a lot of money to replace .
I've been chatting again to my London born and resident brother. Ulez is a stupid action by Sadiq Khan. Not necessarily the principle of the thing but the Draconian manner in which it has been implemented.
Would it really have made THAT much difference to give people, say, 10 years to make the switch? Answer = no. And there should have been far more consultation.
And the outer areas are not so well served for public transport as the inner ring.
Politically it's phenomenally stupid. Typical arrogant socialism. Always happens. They never learn.
It is amazing how this issues has completely sidelined Starmer and Davey's successes, and confirmed just how weak Starmer is as a leader when he is demanding Khan changes the scheme rather than defending it
For all those claiming Starmer is a great leader then this last few days has demonstrated he is not a leader who makes hard decisions, but someone who just wants to be liked
Unfortunately for Starmer politics isn't like that
The Tories want to poison your children. Clean air is a right for all Londoners.
Wouldn't work because it's not a corporation doing the polluting, it's people's own cars, and people won't want to believe that the car they use to keep their little darlings safe from other cars is also poisoning them.
Normally, I'm got keen on management gobbledygook, but the Kubler-Ross Change Curve seems relevant here;
It seems pretty clear that we're somewhere on the left of the graph right now, not helped by some weaponising of fear and ignorance on the right. (Not blaming those who don't know, definitely blaming those who exploit it).
Khan's hope is that London will make it to the right of the graph by next May; I think he's probably right.
(And yes, Brexit optimists are hoping the same thing will happen for their policy. I think that's different, because the K-R curve works for things that are painful transitions but better in the long run. At some point, you have to consider the possibility that there ain't going to be an upwave.)
It’s now clear there are no upsides to Brexit. We no longer have a minister for Brexit opportunities, because that just served as a reminder that there aren’t any.
Brexit will act as a shackle on the British economy until we finally return to the EU, whenever that will be. Obviously, the sooner the better.
It's certainly looking that way.
Which is why I dislike being in the sort of staff meeting where the Kubler Ross chart is shown. In the early stages of a new initiative, it is possible that minion-level pushback is a Luddite resistance to change. But it's also possible that it's because the initiative being pushed is a really bad idea, and the K-R curve doesn't let us tell those apart.
Kubler Ross is how you deal with bad but unavoidable events. Applies to COVID and war in Ukraine*. Arguably the UK could have voted not to impose massive Brexit damage on itself, although K-R might kick in for the rest of us once the decision was made.
* Chinese (probably) and Russian (certainly) authorities could have avoided these events happening.
I've been chatting again to my London born and resident brother. Ulez is a stupid action by Sadiq Khan. Not necessarily the principle of the thing but the Draconian manner in which it has been implemented.
Would it really have made THAT much difference to give people, say, 10 years to make the switch? Answer = no. And there should have been far more consultation.
And the outer areas are not so well served for public transport as the inner ring.
Politically it's phenomenally stupid. Typical arrogant socialism. Always happens. They never learn.
It is amazing how this issues has completely sidelined Starmer and Davey's successes, and confirmed just how weak Starmer is as a leader when he is demanding Khan changes the scheme rather than defending it
For all those claiming Starmer is a great leader then this last few days has demonstrated he is not a leader who makes hard decisions, but someone who just wants to be liked
Unfortunately for Starmer politics isn't like that
It hasn’t really. You won’t find anyone in the North East discussing the ULEZ, other than sados like me.
There is a lesson in there somewhere but if it is anything other than "Fuck you" from the government, I'm damned if I can find it.
Apparently, we should never pay cash for jobs or services, as it's not right to encourage people not to pay their tax, but Amazon, who are purely digital never pay tax either. It's always easier to pick on the little guy.
The majority Brexit voting crew ! I still can’t believe so many in agriculture and fisheries voted against their own interests .
So many farmers and fishermen knew with detailed evidence to back it up that the CAP and CFP were damaging them. Brexit offered them freedom from the paperwork and restrictions. And remember that the deal we were going to get (the easiest deal in history) would ensure we could still trade.
I don't blame desperate people who had seen their industry screwed by EU rules for voting to leave, especially when morons told them such attractive lies.
The problem is that we then got bigger morons to do the deal. Well, not do a deal. And they didn't have a clue what they were asking for, talking about, doing.
"When Scotland’s fishing industry big hitters made their displeasure clear at the August 2021 meeting in Fraserburgh, Johnson claimed incredulity, according to two people present. “Frosty didn’t tell me that!” he said, referring to David Frost, the U.K.’s chief Brexit negotiator and one of his closest political allies. “Frosty said it was a good deal!” "
What you're saying is that, like everyone else, they were lied to.
The clowns were warned and all previous evidence showed that hte Tories were blatant lying toerags so they got what htey deserved for being greedy and believing Tory lies yet again. Hell mend them.
Comments
I don't blame desperate people who had seen their industry screwed by EU rules for voting to leave, especially when morons told them such attractive lies.
The problem is that we then got bigger morons to do the deal. Well, not do a deal. And they didn't have a clue what they were asking for, talking about, doing.
"When Scotland’s fishing industry big hitters made their displeasure clear at the August 2021 meeting in Fraserburgh, Johnson claimed incredulity, according to two people present. “Frosty didn’t tell me that!” he said, referring to David Frost, the U.K.’s chief Brexit negotiator and one of his closest political allies. “Frosty said it was a good deal!” "
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-fisheries-uk-industry-betrayal/
So of course he is going to vote for Vox today. Who will get rid of all the "green crap" being peddled by the socialists. Erm...
I think the overwhelming majority of the country accept the need for things to change on this front, and are willing to make little changes to their lives to help out.
The problem potentially arises where they feel things are imposed on them without adequate consultation, consideration of local issues, support and mitigation.
You don’t win people over by telling them it’s for their own good. The heavy-handedness of those in power on this front (and in the media), which seems to have been exacerbated by Covid, is not a good look.
Doesn’t bode well for a GE campaign, where Starmer’s policy positions and manifesto are going to be dissected and scrutinised by opponents, and he’s going to have to defend himself in debates and discussions.
The numbers are 150k-200k non exempt vehicles in the zone per day which the Mayor pushes, and 700k non exempt vehicles that go into the zone over a year which opponents push.
Both look sensible, neither is right or wrong, but the huge difference causes confusion. From a voting perspective I would suggest the 700k number is more relevant.
Second. Policy should not be dictated by pics of forest fires in southern Europe. They occur annually and it is largely chance as to how much disruption and harm they cause.
Thief only a few years ago the UK told everyone to buy diesel cars. I wonder why folk are a tad sceptical about ulez.
Last. 'Let 's do something' is not a policy.
Their weekly landings show cod typically up 60% in recent weeks as the new arrangements come into force.
But hey, whatever.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2022/may/tfl-seeks-views-on-expanding-world-leading-ulez-london-wide
He does seem to simultaneously think that he can both reduce the number of non-exempt vehicles by 2/3, yet also raise sufficient money to balance the TfL books. Hence the suspicion that a lot more vehicles will become non-exempt in future, and that the target is the occasional visitor who messes up and get fined.
That and the number plate cloners. They’ll be the real winners.
The guy with the £150k car that weighs three tonnes should be paying more in tax, rather than getting free motoring because the car happens to be electric.
I suspect ULEZ cost Labour far more votes than just those who might be directly affected. That's how votes work.
The next GE campaign is going to be dirty as hell and the cynicism we are going to see from the Tories is going to be breathtaking. They will throw everything at Labour in the hope that something sticks, fair or unfair, real or imagined.
In 2010, I recall a lot of eyebrows being raised at the somewhat punchy lines of attack from Labour in terms of the Tories cutting benefits. It was a campaign designed to make people think twice - yes the Tories are getting ready for power but Do.You.Really.Want.Them.There? I think this was a big reason Cameron fell short in the end. We are now 13 years on from that - and in the post truth era. The sort of things we saw from Labour in 2010 are going to look positively quaint.
As someone closely bound to the NE Scotland fishing community, and having been to sea in a seine net boat skippered by my nieces grandfather, you do the fishermen a great disservice in your comment
For 5 days we battled the North Sea with high seas hauling the net from a very low stern gunwale with the waves high above us and then way below us. It was incredibly hard work and dangerous and I did not see any alcohol the whole time we were away
Fishermen deserve great respect, and having experienced the pain of family members drowned at sea and their bodies lost in the deep, I will always jump to the defence of these brave men
I would just comment that fishermen have always been anti EU and there are increased opportunities from this year
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/increased-fishing-opportunities-worth-750-million-agreed-for-2023#:~:text=The UK fishing industry will,latest round of negotiations conclude.&text=The UK fishing industry will benefit from 140,000 tonnes of,an agreement with the EU.
I note with some further surprise that it has Ncuti Gatwa in it, as "Ken". They missed a trick by not calling him "Doctor Ken"...
The Home Office has begun discussions with some EU countries after being asked by Downing Street to agree more youth mobility schemes to help improve the economy without raising record levels of net migration.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, have proposed deals to a number of their European counterparts in recent months.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-european-baristas-and-au-pairs-could-return-to-britain-under-government-scheme-8hxr92jl7
The scheme is in the courts and we have the ridiculous situation of Starmer demanding Khan changes policy
It seems Starmer is upset about Uxbridge, and rather than defend the policy he wants to change it because it is unpopular
I really fear Starmer is far from a leader, as he either fence sits (see doctors) or reverses any unpopular policy
He wants to be liked too much, and that is not possible for someone who has to make hard decisions
The Tories want to poison your children.
Clean air is a right for all Londoners.
If everyone got a ‘clean’ car, the scheme would be a commercial failure.
Of course tax make be payed on the debt interest income, but as the majority of private equity money is overseas, the UK will see none if that.
I very much doubt that the ULEZ will raise anywhere near the expected revenues.
It seems pretty clear that we're somewhere on the left of the graph right now, not helped by some weaponising of fear and ignorance on the right. (Not blaming those who don't know, definitely blaming those who exploit it).
Khan's hope is that London will make it to the right of the graph by next May; I think he's probably right.
(And yes, Brexit optimists are hoping the same thing will happen for their policy. I think that's different, because the K-R curve works for things that are painful transitions but better in the long run. At some point, you have to consider the possibility that there ain't going to be an upwave.)
The question is who did the best deal, United for Mount at £55 million or Arsenal for Rice at £100 million
On last nights performance very much Mount who was excellent
It's not either or, and the policy could certainly have been both better implemented and better spun.
I recognise the point of supporting our old people thru their twilight years, but there is such a thing as taking the piss, sir.
Furthermore, TfL estimates that ULEZ will stop generating a surplus by 2026-27.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65778065
Brexit will act as a shackle on the British economy until we finally return to the EU, whenever that will be. Obviously, the sooner the better.
But from the UK's pov, it's irrelevant.
TBH I wouldn't play Maguire. Surely he *lowers* his price every time he ineptly tries to play.
They wouldn’t have spend the hundreds of millions on the surveillance system, for a scheme that was only going to generate money for three years.
Which is why I dislike being in the sort of staff meeting where the Kubler Ross chart is shown. In the early stages of a new initiative, it is possible that minion-level pushback is a Luddite resistance to change. But it's also possible that it's because the initiative being pushed is a really bad idea, and the K-R curve doesn't let us tell those apart.
Polluting vehicles that we want to get off the road are removed sooner than by natural wastage and there's no net cost to the taxpayer- the polluter pays and all that.
Am I missing something here? That sounds like fantastic value for money.
God Tories are such gigantic whoppers.
cricinfo
https://unherd.com/2023/07/the-dawn-of-the-bohemian-peasants/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=fd17189cf8&mc_eid=836634e34b
This has echoes of the GRR bill for Sturgeon. I think we can over-analyse stuff on PB. The politicians that I've met have to suppress the fact they genuinely care about some issues.
Stopping businesses from importing low paid workers and the resulting increases in pay at the bottom was one of the few plausible Brexit benefits the government has been able to point to.
The ULEZ has been introduced as a revenue-raising measure. When all the cars are compliant, and it isn't raising any revenue, they will tighten the rules.
Once all cars are electric and have zero tailpipe emissions they aren't likely to take down all the cameras and give up on the revenue. They'll want to use the existing infrastructure to introduce a road-pricing scheme for all cars.
I've been chatting again to my London born and resident brother. Ulez is a stupid action by Sadiq Khan. Not necessarily the principle of the thing but the Draconian manner in which it has been implemented.
Would it really have made THAT much difference to give people, say, 10 years to make the switch? Answer = no. And there should have been far more consultation.
And the outer areas are not so well served for public transport as the inner ring.
Politically it's phenomenally stupid. Typical arrogant socialism. Always happens. They never learn.
There's a lot about London you're not picking up from the distance of the sandpit.
My old car is ULEZ compliant but I absolutely could not afford a new one right now but honestly I feel incredibly guilty driving it these days.
Morning all.
Provocative theory, TSE !
@Pagan2 I addressed your question (plus a bit of context) on the end of the thread last night.
The economic model built by the Conservatives post-Brexit is a machine designed to make workers work harder and harder for less and less pay in order to funnel more and more taxes upwards to wealthy older people and outwards to foreign investors. UK people aren't governed, they are strip-mined. If the fruits of the growth aren't directed to the people who generate it, then what is the point? It's not a Government, it's an occupation force.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/asda-and-morrisons-pay-zero-business-tax-wdgp9g88c
There is a lesson in there somewhere but if it is anything other than "Fuck you" from the government, I'm damned if I can find it.
For all those claiming Starmer is a great leader then this last few days has demonstrated he is not a leader who makes hard decisions, but someone who just wants to be liked
Unfortunately for Starmer politics isn't like that
* Chinese (probably) and Russian (certainly) authorities could have avoided these events happening.