Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
I've no wish to mark my return with a massive stramash, nor do I desire to humilate another PB local. but I can't - in all honesty - let this go by from @Richard_Tyndall
It is just so wrong, it is beyond ignorance
"There has been not a single domesticated bone fragment nor husk of domesticated cereal found at Gobleki Tepe. Out of all of the hundreds of thousands of bones found covering the whole site - not one"
The actual science:
"The high frequency of artifacts is unusual for contemporary sites in the region. Using an integrated approach of formal, experimental, and macro- / microscopical use-wear analyses we show that Neolithic people at Göbekli Tepe have produced standardized and efficient grinding tools, most of which have been used for the processing of cereals. Additional phytolith analysis confirms the massive presence of cereals at the site, filling the gap left by the weakly preserved charred macro-rests. "
The whole pivotal point of the Tas Tepeler, Gobekli included, is that they are situated in the very same place where wild grasses were turned into cereals round 9000-8000BC, and where wild animals became domesticated
"The Göbekli Tepe people of Anatolia were probably the first plant breeders on earth. There, they settled 12,000 years ago and selected einkorn wheat for their nutrition. About 6000 years later, this culture arrived in Europe."
Really? Did he get paid extra to do that one quickly?
I am presuming that we are going to get a tour de force comparing Edinburgh's trams with every system and even potential system in the history of the world. It may not even be limited to this planet.
If I say that certain Nationalists have been consulted about extra-terrestrial systems, will I be a target for ballistic turnips for the rest of the day?
Not as long as you make clear that they were members of the SNP rather than Alba.
It has recently re-emerged. It is known as "Skinny Bob"
There are many weird things about it. eg it is one of four or five vids posted by a guy named "Ivan0135" in 2011. Ivan posted this then never posted again. If it is a fake -surely it is a fake - it is quite brilliant (esp for 2011). The old time clicking overlay is tiresome and bogus (and proved to be so), but the underlying footage is still deeply impressive. The blinking!
It is now the subject of much wild discussion. If it is a hoax (my guess) how did they do it? Consensus is it would have taken a serious professional in Hollywood, using puppets and CGI perhaps in combo, and with a lot of money
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
Was reportedly a brandy and cigars man - the pipe was as much a prop as anything else.
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
Was reportedly a brandy and cigars man - the pipe was as much a prop as anything else.
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
... on your broader point @darkage , this site has a wide range of opinions. My view is that it has generally become a bit more representative of a demographically older, mostly white male, anti-progressive type. But I wouldn't want to overstate this. There are many alternative viewpoints.
Also, don't pigeon hole people. Nor assume you always know where they stand. Almost everyone on here has the capacity to surprise, mainly because barring one or two exceptions they are not parroting a party political line.
If you want a personal example: I argued that NATO should stand up to Putin from the outset and install a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine. I believe this now more than ever. Some Leftie, eh?
Good morning all by the way
"Progressive" is one of those many abused terms which seems to mean whatever the person using it wishes it to mean.
You were, and still are, wrong about the no fly zone.
Good to see @Leon re-emerge. I do agree with the sentiment though that this website is turning in to an echo chamber with an increasingly limited acceptable range of opinion. It is reading like a forum for widespread agreement on progressive talking points. Ironically when I started reading the comments on this website, perhaps 8 years ago, it was to try and challenge my own 'left/liberal' beliefs as many (but by no means all) of the commentators were taking an informed 'right wing', pro Brexit perspective. It is mostly now just evidence of the problem of progressive groupthink. The problem with those who have succumbed to this viewpoint is that there will be things that happen in the future in politics that go against your worldview and you have no way of explaining, because you have lost the ability to understand the other side of the argument.
I think there is a decent spread of views! We have posters from the distant left and right of the political spectrum, and have some interesting debates about various policy areas.
The "limited acceptable range of opinion" you speak of - isn't that just pushing the more interesting positions with a stick to check for facts / realism / sanity?
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
... on your broader point @darkage , this site has a wide range of opinions. My view is that it has generally become a bit more representative of a demographically older, mostly white male, anti-progressive type. But I wouldn't want to overstate this. There are many alternative viewpoints.
Also, don't pigeon hole people. Nor assume you always know where they stand. Almost everyone on here has the capacity to surprise, mainly because barring one or two exceptions they are not parroting a party political line.
If you want a personal example: I argued that NATO should stand up to Putin from the outset and install a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine. I believe this now more than ever. Some Leftie, eh?
Good morning all by the way
"Progressive" is one of those many abused terms which seems to mean whatever the person using it wishes it to mean.
You were, and still are, wrong about the no fly zone.
NATO imposing a no fly zone over Ukraine would have started WW3 and is a complete non starter
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Revealing the secrets of a 2900-year-old clay brick, discovering a time capsule of ancient DNA https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38191-w The recent development of techniques to sequence ancient DNA has provided valuable insights into the civilisations that came before us. However, the full potential of these methods has yet to be realised. We extracted ancient DNA from a recently exposed fracture surface of a clay brick deriving from the palace of king Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) in Nimrud, Iraq. We detected 34 unique taxonomic groups of plants. With this research we have made the pioneering discovery that ancient DNA, effectively protected from contamination inside a mass of clay, can successfully be extracted from a 2900-year-old clay brick. ..
Doesn't this form the basis of a claim against the Danish museum which currently holds the artefact ? ...It is possible to date this specific brick within a decade due to its inscription, which identifies it as: “The property of the palace of Ashurnasirpal, king of Assyria”. ..
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
I've no wish to mark my return with a massive stramash, nor do I desire to humilate another PB local. but I can't - in all honesty - let this go by from @Richard_Tyndall
It is just so wrong, it is beyond ignorance
"There has been not a single domesticated bone fragment nor husk of domesticated cereal found at Gobleki Tepe. Out of all of the hundreds of thousands of bones found covering the whole site - not one"
The actual science:
"The high frequency of artifacts is unusual for contemporary sites in the region. Using an integrated approach of formal, experimental, and macro- / microscopical use-wear analyses we show that Neolithic people at Göbekli Tepe have produced standardized and efficient grinding tools, most of which have been used for the processing of cereals. Additional phytolith analysis confirms the massive presence of cereals at the site, filling the gap left by the weakly preserved charred macro-rests. "
The whole pivotal point of the Tas Tepeler, Gobekli included, is that they are situated in the very same place where wild grasses were turned into cereals round 9000-8000BC, and where wild animals became domesticated
"The Göbekli Tepe people of Anatolia were probably the first plant breeders on earth. There, they settled 12,000 years ago and selected einkorn wheat for their nutrition. About 6000 years later, this culture arrived in Europe."
The fascinating find is the ships. It seems that they ritually built totally useless ships. over a period of thousands of years, which were never finished. According to carvings in the site, these had a mystical connection with transporting people to and from islands - which archaeologists think were metaphysical representations of the afterlife.
You have to judge someone by their track record. Many moons ago, Hancock wrote "The Mars Mystery", which took the infamous "Face on Mars" as the basis of the idea that Mars once housed a society.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
... on your broader point @darkage , this site has a wide range of opinions. My view is that it has generally become a bit more representative of a demographically older, mostly white male, anti-progressive type. But I wouldn't want to overstate this. There are many alternative viewpoints.
Also, don't pigeon hole people. Nor assume you always know where they stand. Almost everyone on here has the capacity to surprise, mainly because barring one or two exceptions they are not parroting a party political line.
If you want a personal example: I argued that NATO should stand up to Putin from the outset and install a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine. I believe this now more than ever. Some Leftie, eh?
Good morning all by the way
"Progressive" is one of those many abused terms which seems to mean whatever the person using it wishes it to mean.
You were, and still are, wrong about the no fly zone.
NATO imposing a no fly zone over Ukraine would have started WW3 and is a complete non starter
I am far from convinced that it would have started WW3. It was a risk, though.
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Yes I am. What is your point? Councillor has contrary views shock?
Don't try whataboutery here, look at my last post and lets go back to the utter ineptitude of the Tory government. 13 years they have had to "fix Labour's Act". By which they mean taking power away from London now that they have lost.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Wildly off topic, but...conspiracy theories. WTF is going on? I tend to only use Facebook for community groups and a few firefighting/mountain biking/campervanning/VW/photography/drone/woodworking sort of stuff. Every discussion now ends up in a spat about ULEZ or 15 minute cities, banning cars or traveling away from your assigned location, antivaccination, cashless society, freeman law, Magna Carta, flat earth, moon landings. One of my favourite groups is Google Earth Interesting Sites/Anomalies. I learned today about anti DEW blue roofs in China, and how US Navy direct energy weapons caused the recent Hawaiian wild fires. Even people I know well in real life, people I used to work with, are reposting stuff. One lad who I used to think of as being a solid bloke gets regularly banned or factchecked posts taken down. He's convinced adrenochrome is a thing. He hates Gates/Obama/Schwab....even George Clooney is one of illuminati. It's getting crazy out there!
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Eh? What's it got to do with Starmer?
Khan has taken a decision about London, which seems to have majority support amongst Londoners. That's how this sort of thing is meant to work, I thought.
Pointing out that car ownership is relatively uncommon in London isn't out of touch, it's explaining the context to viewers who don't live here.
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
It's interesting that Ramaswamy was fairly widely judged to have "won" the debate, but this hasn't translated into any rise in support.
It seems possible that his problem in casting himself too much as heir to, and proxy for, Trump is many Republicans say, "Great... that confirms why I am voting for Trump."
Meanwhile Haley, and to a lesser extent Pence and DeSantis, have had a boost from credible debate performances which emphasised their own merits.
All small-beer compared with Trump's dominant polling, and maybe Ramaswamy is thinking his slavish approach will pay dividends if Trump becomes unavailable for selection at some point over the next year which, realistically, is the most likely route for all GOP candidates.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
In any case, some of the Tories and certainly their fellow-travellers are more in a RNLI-sinking mood of late, thanks to the RNLI's aforesaid sterling work. So lifeboat-clinging, whether to the RNLI or anything else, would be an improvement.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
I've no wish to mark my return with a massive stramash, nor do I desire to humilate another PB local. but I can't - in all honesty - let this go by from @Richard_Tyndall
It is just so wrong, it is beyond ignorance
"There has been not a single domesticated bone fragment nor husk of domesticated cereal found at Gobleki Tepe. Out of all of the hundreds of thousands of bones found covering the whole site - not one"
The actual science:
"The high frequency of artifacts is unusual for contemporary sites in the region. Using an integrated approach of formal, experimental, and macro- / microscopical use-wear analyses we show that Neolithic people at Göbekli Tepe have produced standardized and efficient grinding tools, most of which have been used for the processing of cereals. Additional phytolith analysis confirms the massive presence of cereals at the site, filling the gap left by the weakly preserved charred macro-rests. "
The whole pivotal point of the Tas Tepeler, Gobekli included, is that they are situated in the very same place where wild grasses were turned into cereals round 9000-8000BC, and where wild animals became domesticated
"The Göbekli Tepe people of Anatolia were probably the first plant breeders on earth. There, they settled 12,000 years ago and selected einkorn wheat for their nutrition. About 6000 years later, this culture arrived in Europe."
that sounds like one of those cryptic crossword clues I can never do
During the Ice Age, the Ice Sheets were so thick and extensive that sea level was about 100 m (328 ft) lower, give or take, at the so-called Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, and vast lands were exposed. Including, but certainly not limited to: Doggerland in the North Sea, the entire floor of the Persian Gulf, the land bridge linking India and Sri Lanka, and a bigger land bridge between Oz and New Guinea. But a HUGE area was exposed in the area bounded by Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, the Sunda Shelf (or Sundaland). Slap bang on the equator, and fed by at least four major rivers, this surely would have been the most ideal place for an Ice Age Refugium.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
BigG, 'lifeboat-clinging' is a very common metaphor, and in that wording quite clearly refers to shipwrecks with ship's lifeboats, think Titanic. Not least because you couldn't cling to a RNLI one - the crew would have you up on deck and down in the cabin in a trice. RP really, really, is not trying to get at you. He approves of the RNLI, anyway!
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Quite an odd one to choose as an example of Lib Dems playing to the gallery, as I suspect it is actually a case where Lib Dems in different parts of the country are united on the issue and this is one where the views of Tory MPs vary based on local demographics.
I have to say it is true for all parties that the constituency matters in terms of view. For example, Boris Johnson was a strong advocate for ULEZ as Mayor of London (where he had to appeal to inner Londoners where car ownership is relatively low and pollution relatively high), but Tory councillors in Kent are naturally much more sceptical.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
BigG, 'lifeboat-clinging' is a very common metaphor, and in that wording quite clearly refers to shipwrecks with ship's lifeboats, think Titanic. Not least because you couldn't cling to a RNLI one - the crew would have you up on deck and down in the cabin in a trice. RP really, really, is not trying to get at you. He approves of the RNLI, anyway!
I do. Lets move on. Lifeboat-clinging, Straw-clutching - choose your metaphor. Either way, its embarrassing politics from Harper and the Tories. And this all started when Big_G tried to claim that Khan was "out of touch" by citing simple facts.
Unless we have a start point based in reality, our politics goes wrong. And it has gone very wrong because nobody wants to cite reality as Khan did.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
You want to build lots of roads as the solution, I have a fascination with urban motorway plans. London could have not elected a Labour GLC in 1973 and oil crisis or not we would now have a London with various strips of motorway blasted through places like Peckham and Camden.
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Quite an odd one to choose as an example of Lib Dems playing to the gallery, as I suspect it is actually a case where Lib Dems in different parts of the country are united on the issue and this is one where the views of Tory MPs vary based on local demographics.
I have to say it is true for all parties that the constituency matters in terms of view. For example, Boris Johnson was a strong advocate for ULEZ as Mayor of London (where he had to appeal to inner Londoners where car ownership is relatively low and pollution relatively high), but Tory councillors in Kent are naturally much more sceptical.
Just commenting on the well known and loved flexibility of LibDem policy at a local level.
This does have some real consequences - it is a part of the mechanism by which we prevent housing being built in this country.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
If London is similar to Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with bring rich and able-bodied too.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
I do find the anti-LTN position in Edinburgh bizarre - they must depend on the student and Green-but-voting-LD-at-Westminster vote to some extent. Likewise in St Andrews.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
You have to judge someone by their track record. Many moons ago, Hancock wrote "The Mars Mystery", which took the infamous "Face on Mars" as the basis of the idea that Mars once housed a society.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
Can I just say that notwithstanding this morning comments I have never doubted for one minute your support for the RNLI
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Quite an odd one to choose as an example of Lib Dems playing to the gallery, as I suspect it is actually a case where Lib Dems in different parts of the country are united on the issue and this is one where the views of Tory MPs vary based on local demographics.
I have to say it is true for all parties that the constituency matters in terms of view. For example, Boris Johnson was a strong advocate for ULEZ as Mayor of London (where he had to appeal to inner Londoners where car ownership is relatively low and pollution relatively high), but Tory councillors in Kent are naturally much more sceptical.
Just commenting on the well known and loved flexibility of LibDem policy at a local level.
This does have some real consequences - it is a part of the mechanism by which we prevent housing being built in this country.
It is rather silly to level this at the Lib Dems but not other parties. It is absolutely commonplace for local Conservatives to favour housebuilding... but not here.
I share some of your concerns over NIMBYism, but your repeated assertions that this is a trait particular to one party is merely your usual one-eyed nonsense.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
If London is similar to Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with bring rich and able-bodied too.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
House prices in London are largely a function of closeness (but not too close) to Tube stations and closeness to shops.
So you get an inverse effect at the other end of income scale - where you can be rich enough not to need a car.
At the the bottom you have people struggling with a trolley of shopping across 4 buses to get home.
And somewhere in between, in outer London, you have lots of people who need a car to live where they do, much in the way that you need a car if you live miles out in the countryside.
One thing that distorts views of London, is that nearly no one visits those suburban outer areas casually. Non-Londoners are usually visiting the centre - whether for work or entertainement.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
I don't think I know anybody who doesn't support the RNLI, Big G just sees the word lifeboat and goes all misty eyed!
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
If London is similar to Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with bring rich and able-bodied too.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
I do find the anti-LTN position in Edinburgh bizarre - they must depend on the student and Green-but-voting-LD-at-Westminster vote to some extent. Likewise in St Andrews.
Given the LDs' main rival in both seats is the SNP, I doubt it.
They would depend more on Tory tactical votes while those groups vote SNP
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
I don't think I know anybody who doesn't support the RNLI, Bi G just sees the word lifeboat and goes all misty eyed!
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
Speaking from a position of favouring the ULEZ but isn't the problem with Khan's comments that he is talking about London as a whole when the debate is about the extension into the outer areas. It does seem a bit obviously disingenuous.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
If London is similar to Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with bring rich and able-bodied too.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
I do find the anti-LTN position in Edinburgh bizarre - they must depend on the student and Green-but-voting-LD-at-Westminster vote to some extent. Likewise in St Andrews.
I spoke with one LD councillor and he suggested they might move to a ban on *new* LTNs, to distinguish from the Tory policy of removing historical ones. He's a big green so looked mortified by the whole discussion.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It might also have been a mistaken attack line, or at least a curiously and rather spitefully personal one, against a London Mayor who was a few years ago diagnosed with adult onset asthma caused by pollution.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
One's cat is mote likely to defecate in the neighbour's garden than one's own garden. True dat.
Wildly off topic, but...conspiracy theories. WTF is going on? I tend to only use Facebook for community groups and a few firefighting/mountain biking/campervanning/VW/photography/drone/woodworking sort of stuff. Every discussion now ends up in a spat about ULEZ or 15 minute cities, banning cars or traveling away from your assigned location, antivaccination, cashless society, freeman law, Magna Carta, flat earth, moon landings. One of my favourite groups is Google Earth Interesting Sites/Anomalies. I learned today about anti DEW blue roofs in China, and how US Navy direct energy weapons caused the recent Hawaiian wild fires. Even people I know well in real life, people I used to work with, are reposting stuff. One lad who I used to think of as being a solid bloke gets regularly banned or factchecked posts taken down. He's convinced adrenochrome is a thing. He hates Gates/Obama/Schwab....even George Clooney is one of illuminati. It's getting crazy out there!
"I tend to only use facebook for..." followed by an awful lot of facebook usage.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
If London is similar to Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with bring rich and able-bodied too.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
I do find the anti-LTN position in Edinburgh bizarre - they must depend on the student and Green-but-voting-LD-at-Westminster vote to some extent. Likewise in St Andrews.
I spoke with one LD councillor and he suggested they might move to a ban on *new* LTNs, to distinguish from the Tory policy of removing historical ones. He's a big green so looked mortified by the whole discussion.
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain went to Birmingham and Lord Bute went to Leiden I believe too
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
You want to build lots of roads as the solution, I have a fascination with urban motorway plans. London could have not elected a Labour GLC in 1973 and oil crisis or not we would now have a London with various strips of motorway blasted through places like Peckham and Camden.
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
And in the biggest one where we did that (small scale granted) Birmingham, that road, the Aston "Distressway" is gridlocked for most of the day and has been for the last 40 years.
Forget ULEZ, forget LTNs, city and town centre roads are now unusable simply due to volume of traffic. The cost in time and productivity to UK Plc must be off the scale. And yet the Tories see a vote in it so Starmer panics. Good for Khan, telling them all to f-off!
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
You want to build lots of roads as the solution, I have a fascination with urban motorway plans. London could have not elected a Labour GLC in 1973 and oil crisis or not we would now have a London with various strips of motorway blasted through places like Peckham and Camden.
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
But inner London isn't the discussion, they already have the policy, outer London is where its being expanded to.
And I've not been proposing motorways for inner cities either. I accept that inner cities may need different policies to suburbs and towns and the rest of the country - but the overwhelming majority of homes are in that rest of the country, so that's what we should be talking about much more.
Our political conversation is far too dominated by inner cities, because of our London based media in no small part I imagine.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Ease up, BIg G. Just because yer lad does sterling work on the boats, doesn't mean you get to decide what people write.
@RochdalePioneers knows my son is RNLI crew so his comment to me was said in the knowledge of our RNLI connections and was unnecessary
We all know your lad is RNLI, because you love to tell us. That's fair enough, but you get yer knickers in a twist everytime the letters RNLI are posted. I've probably seen more traumatic death and injury than most on here, maybe with the exception of Foxy (Dura Ace has probably caused more!), and I don't give a toss what anyone one says on here about the emergency services, everything is fair game.
I think the analogy is fair. This government politically is drowning. A year being behind a long way behind in the polls. Suddenly a chink of light on the horizon - they clung on in Uxbridge. A political lifeboat rescuing a drowning government.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
Can I just say that notwithstanding this morning comments I have never doubted for one minute your support for the RNLI
Good! So now we have poked at the straw man and set it aside, can we get back to the debate?
46% of London households have no car. So "half" as Khan claimed is simple reality, not showing he is "out of touch" as you claimed. The policy is popular in London as polls show. The policy is one which this government supported as recently as 2021. Expansion of ULEZ was a condition of the government bailing out TfL from its Covid bankruptcy.
So given that this government supports the policy, why is it now against it? Why is Harper writing to Starmer demanding that he withdraw the policy? Complaining that the Tories have failed to "fix Labour's Act" despite having 13 years to do it?
Could it be simple gross hypocrisy and political opportunism? They had no issue with the policy or the GLA Act until now. But with a political lifeboat issue to cling to they need to blame someone else.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
If London is similar to Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with bring rich and able-bodied too.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
I do find the anti-LTN position in Edinburgh bizarre - they must depend on the student and Green-but-voting-LD-at-Westminster vote to some extent. Likewise in St Andrews.
Given the LDs' main rival in both seats is the SNP, I doubt it.
They would depend more on Tory tactical votes while those groups vote SNP
That argument forgets that those people *are* part of the core LD vote in the two uni seats. And the LDs also need to think how to retain them and the Green LDs at Holyrood and in the local councils, where the voting system gives full weight and minimises the need for tactical voting.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
Only possible if Corbyn splits the Lab vote, and the Tory limps home.
I think though that there is something true in the backlash against the incumbent. It was true of Lab in Leicester and Slough in the Locals, but is a worldwide phenomenon. Ours isn't the only country that seems to be in decline, and where nothing works.
It was more a pro Rishi vote in Leicester and Slough given the high Hindu vote there
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
You want to build lots of roads as the solution, I have a fascination with urban motorway plans. London could have not elected a Labour GLC in 1973 and oil crisis or not we would now have a London with various strips of motorway blasted through places like Peckham and Camden.
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
Cf Glasgow. Apart from the decades of particulates being sucked into Glaswegian lungs, the construction of the M8 destroyed a rather nice Victorian/Edwardian area of the city. This could be a pic of Berlin ‘45.
Wildly off topic, but...conspiracy theories. WTF is going on? I tend to only use Facebook for community groups and a few firefighting/mountain biking/campervanning/VW/photography/drone/woodworking sort of stuff. Every discussion now ends up in a spat about ULEZ or 15 minute cities, banning cars or traveling away from your assigned location, antivaccination, cashless society, freeman law, Magna Carta, flat earth, moon landings. One of my favourite groups is Google Earth Interesting Sites/Anomalies. I learned today about anti DEW blue roofs in China, and how US Navy direct energy weapons caused the recent Hawaiian wild fires. Even people I know well in real life, people I used to work with, are reposting stuff. One lad who I used to think of as being a solid bloke gets regularly banned or factchecked posts taken down. He's convinced adrenochrome is a thing. He hates Gates/Obama/Schwab....even George Clooney is one of illuminati. It's getting crazy out there!
"I tend to only use facebook for..." followed by an awful lot of facebook usage.
I think the clue to the solution is in your post.
Fair point, but I meant "only use" as in I don't post personal stuff, updates on what I had for breakfast or how far I ran with a link to my strava map. FB groups are great if you're wiring up a van electrical system or having trouble getting your drone to behave or your shimano gears are playing up. It's a bit like Political Betting, though. It gets overwhelmed by crazies!
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
Speaking from a position of favouring the ULEZ but isn't the problem with Khan's comments that he is talking about London as a whole when the debate is about the extension into the outer areas. It does seem a bit obviously disingenuous.
I think this one is pretty simple - authorities set policies that apply within their geographic area of authority. London sets policies that benefit London. If ULEZ on the outer ring causes economic problems then they will balance that against the other benefits gained by the policy. If.
I have no problem with voters anywhere setting a policy to their benefit within the bounds of the legal framework in which they operate. Its democracy. And what Harper is proposing is to abolish democracy. Voters have a legal power, which he wants to overturn because he doesn't like how they voted.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
You want to build lots of roads as the solution, I have a fascination with urban motorway plans. London could have not elected a Labour GLC in 1973 and oil crisis or not we would now have a London with various strips of motorway blasted through places like Peckham and Camden.
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
Cf Glasgow. Apart from the decades of particulates being sucked into Glaswegian lungs, the construction of the M8 destroyed a rather nice Victorian/Edwardian area of the city. This could be a pic of Berlin ‘45.
Terence Davies makes extraordinary films, including one about the demolition of the rather nice Victorian/Edwardian slums of Liverpool and the conflicting emotions that that provokes.
Main gainers Haley and Pence then from that debate
"The poll found that 27 percent of voters felt entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy won the debate last week, but it did not immediately translate to an increase in his support, which dropped from 10 percent to 9 percent in the Emerson poll."
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain went to Birmingham and Lord Bute went to Leiden I believe too
Plus Bonar Law went to Glasgow and a few others went to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Birmingham as well as Oxbridge
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
You want to build lots of roads as the solution, I have a fascination with urban motorway plans. London could have not elected a Labour GLC in 1973 and oil crisis or not we would now have a London with various strips of motorway blasted through places like Peckham and Camden.
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
Cf Glasgow. Apart from the decades of particulates being sucked into Glaswegian lungs, the construction of the M8 destroyed a rather nice Victorian/Edwardian area of the city. This could be a pic of Berlin ‘45.
Glasgow is one of those cities that went car crazy. Luckily they didn't build what had been planned, but still are stuck with the M8 and M74 smashing through the inner area. Much better would have been the northern and southern orbitals built in open countryside to bypass the city completely.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
If London is similar to Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with bring rich and able-bodied too.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
I do find the anti-LTN position in Edinburgh bizarre - they must depend on the student and Green-but-voting-LD-at-Westminster vote to some extent. Likewise in St Andrews.
Given the LDs' main rival in both seats is the SNP, I doubt it.
They would depend more on Tory tactical votes while those groups vote SNP
That argument forgets that those people *are* part of the core LD vote in the two uni seats. And the LDs also need to think how to retain them and the Green LDs at Holyrood and in the local councils, where the voting system gives full weight and minimises the need for tactical voting.
They aren't they would mostly be voting SNP at Westminster or SNP and Green at Holyrood.
In LD v SNP marginals the LDs are actually the right of centre option and the SNP the left of centre and anti tuition fees option
Wildly off topic, but...conspiracy theories. WTF is going on? I tend to only use Facebook for community groups and a few firefighting/mountain biking/campervanning/VW/photography/drone/woodworking sort of stuff. Every discussion now ends up in a spat about ULEZ or 15 minute cities, banning cars or traveling away from your assigned location, antivaccination, cashless society, freeman law, Magna Carta, flat earth, moon landings. One of my favourite groups is Google Earth Interesting Sites/Anomalies. I learned today about anti DEW blue roofs in China, and how US Navy direct energy weapons caused the recent Hawaiian wild fires. Even people I know well in real life, people I used to work with, are reposting stuff. One lad who I used to think of as being a solid bloke gets regularly banned or factchecked posts taken down. He's convinced adrenochrome is a thing. He hates Gates/Obama/Schwab....even George Clooney is one of illuminati. It's getting crazy out there!
I am on a lot of facebook pages for all manner of different interests and the rule for me is I will only stay if they are well moderated.
This means clear joining instructions that off topic stuff, abuse, conspiracy theories etc are banned and that those breaking the rules are also banned.
This seems to work well. Group sizes vary from a few dozen to tens of thousands (the medieval and tudor buidings page which I believe a few other PB members are on being a good example) but having strict, rapidly enforced rules keeps things pleasant.
I am always minded on Facebook that there will be a massive spread of opinion and that most people on there are not there for politics or conspiracy theories etc. It is not PB so I act accordingly.
I do have relatives who do nothing but post the sorts of stuff you are talking about and I tend to have them on permanent mute.
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain went to Birmingham and Lord Bute went to Leiden I believe too
Good spot on Bute. I shall polish up my knowledge.
Chamberlain is a more complex one because first Mason College (as it then was) was a technical college not a university college at the time he went there, and also he never graduated. But I suppose a case could be made that he was at Birmingham.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
People are really losing their mind out there. I guess the interesting question is whether this is a purely organic process or whether it is being driven by malign actors (eg anti-Western state actors). My money would be on the latter, although I guess perhaps that is also a conspiracy theory!
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
I had a friend (actually my thesis supervisor) who lived in a flat above a private garage in Park Lane where he benefitted from the owner centrally heating the downstairs garage for his Rolls Royce.
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain went to Birmingham and Lord Bute went to Leiden I believe too
Plus Bonar Law went to Glasgow and a few others went to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Birmingham as well as Oxbridge
Did he? When?
My understanding is he attended some extra mural lectures as a member of the public but from the age of 16 was apprenticed to the family business.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Regarding "out of touch" or not, it rather depends upon what else was said.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
You want to build lots of roads as the solution, I have a fascination with urban motorway plans. London could have not elected a Labour GLC in 1973 and oil crisis or not we would now have a London with various strips of motorway blasted through places like Peckham and Camden.
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
Cf Glasgow. Apart from the decades of particulates being sucked into Glaswegian lungs, the construction of the M8 destroyed a rather nice Victorian/Edwardian area of the city. This could be a pic of Berlin ‘45.
Terence Davies makes extraordinary films, including one about the demolition of the rather nice Victorian/Edwardian slums of Liverpool and the conflicting emotions that that provokes.
As you demonstrate ‘slums’ can be a subjective term, but Charing Cross would’t have come under that category even in the years that our brave new world was being constructed. The classic Glaswegian example, the Gorbals, wasn’t uniformly a tb infested cesspit either, but it all had to go under the cleansing wrecking ball.
Edit: even a tram for those whose tastes run that way!
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
Speaking from a position of favouring the ULEZ but isn't the problem with Khan's comments that he is talking about London as a whole when the debate is about the extension into the outer areas. It does seem a bit obviously disingenuous.
I think this one is pretty simple - authorities set policies that apply within their geographic area of authority. London sets policies that benefit London. If ULEZ on the outer ring causes economic problems then they will balance that against the other benefits gained by the policy. If.
I have no problem with voters anywhere setting a policy to their benefit within the bounds of the legal framework in which they operate. Its democracy. And what Harper is proposing is to abolish democracy. Voters have a legal power, which he wants to overturn because he doesn't like how they voted.
Yep. As I say I think on balance the ULEZ is a good idea but it has been poorly implemented in many respects and I was making a specific point about Khan's rather cavalier use of statistics.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
Speaking from a position of favouring the ULEZ but isn't the problem with Khan's comments that he is talking about London as a whole when the debate is about the extension into the outer areas. It does seem a bit obviously disingenuous.
I think this one is pretty simple - authorities set policies that apply within their geographic area of authority. London sets policies that benefit London. If ULEZ on the outer ring causes economic problems then they will balance that against the other benefits gained by the policy. If.
I have no problem with voters anywhere setting a policy to their benefit within the bounds of the legal framework in which they operate. Its democracy. And what Harper is proposing is to abolish democracy. Voters have a legal power, which he wants to overturn because he doesn't like how they voted.
That last sentence sums up, in my view, the Tories' whole approach to democracy. (And Labour aren't much better).
Lib Dem councillor in Sutton on BBC Breakfast strongly against ULEZ. I hadn’t really thought about their policy on this, but it does look like they are generally opposed.
I guess they are in a bind. They know how unpopular it is and don’t want to give the Tories an edge in Surrey and South West London.
I would assume they are strongly opposed in the newly affected area and the surrounding counties and fully in favour elsewhere.
I look forward to a Lib Dem, locally, advocating the death penalty.
Quite an odd one to choose as an example of Lib Dems playing to the gallery, as I suspect it is actually a case where Lib Dems in different parts of the country are united on the issue and this is one where the views of Tory MPs vary based on local demographics.
I have to say it is true for all parties that the constituency matters in terms of view. For example, Boris Johnson was a strong advocate for ULEZ as Mayor of London (where he had to appeal to inner Londoners where car ownership is relatively low and pollution relatively high), but Tory councillors in Kent are naturally much more sceptical.
Just commenting on the well known and loved flexibility of LibDem policy at a local level.
This does have some real consequences - it is a part of the mechanism by which we prevent housing being built in this country.
It is rather silly to level this at the Lib Dems but not other parties. It is absolutely commonplace for local Conservatives to favour housebuilding... but not here.
I share some of your concerns over NIMBYism, but your repeated assertions that this is a trait particular to one party is merely your usual one-eyed nonsense.
It’s actually the main turn off, for me, for voting Lib Dem.
Haven’t voted for a Conservative candidate in a long, long time.
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
Speaking from a position of favouring the ULEZ but isn't the problem with Khan's comments that he is talking about London as a whole when the debate is about the extension into the outer areas. It does seem a bit obviously disingenuous.
I think this one is pretty simple - authorities set policies that apply within their geographic area of authority. London sets policies that benefit London. If ULEZ on the outer ring causes economic problems then they will balance that against the other benefits gained by the policy. If.
I have no problem with voters anywhere setting a policy to their benefit within the bounds of the legal framework in which they operate. Its democracy. And what Harper is proposing is to abolish democracy. Voters have a legal power, which he wants to overturn because he doesn't like how they voted.
That last sentence sums up, in my view, the Tories' whole approach to democracy. (And Labour aren't much better).
And the various lawsuits about The Subject That Must Not Be Named were about
1) overturning democracy 2) the legal limits of voting for something in the Commons vs the constitutional structures of the country.
Personally, I greatly dislike attempts to legislate through the courts. The American example of turning the Supreme Court into the premier legislative assembly is an utter disaster.
On the other hand - who would give up the right to legally challenge laws?
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
I have no doubt Starmer is heading into no 10, but that does not give him a free pass and on this even Starmer is expressing concern over the effect of the poorly implemented scheme by Khan
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
Is "straw-clutching" better?
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
I assume you have now read Sutton Lib Dems oppose ULEZ
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
Like I said, "local councillor has contrary view" shock.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
If London is like Scottish cities, then car ownership is correlated with being older, able-bodied, and richer. I don't see much much danger for Khan.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
An average earner who lives in the suburbs with children is more likely to have a car than a high earner who lives on central London and just uses the tube or taxis or walks to get around
And both are much more likely to have a car than working class Londoners. I know a fair few very rich people living in RBKC etc and I'm pretty sure they've all got a motor, BTW.
Of course they have. The majority are sorted, one way or another (no car, use public transport, whatever), of whatever net worth.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
Why not just sell the Merc then ?
Plenty of people need a car but aren't going to go anywhere near London.
You could sell it and get a 16 plate 308 Peugeot ULEZ compliant HDI with change left over.
The real issue judging by various Nick Ferrari phone ins seems to be getting a ULEZ compliant work van. They do seem to be like rocking horse shit.
Re: public perceptions of politicians discussed upthread. Twice I've seen quiz shows where contestants were asked to name a Post War British Prime Minister who didn't go to University and contestants have said Harold Wilson, when in reality Wilson was one of the most academic PMs we have had.
Double first at Oxford. Where "smoking" a pipe was a very common affectation.
There weren't many Prime Ministers since 1945 who didn't attend uni. I have Churchill, Callaghan and Major, but I can't think of any others.
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
Neville Chamberlain went to Birmingham and Lord Bute went to Leiden I believe too
Good spot on Bute. I shall polish up my knowledge.
Chamberlain is a more complex one because first Mason College (as it then was) was a technical college not a university college at the time he went there, and also he never graduated. But I suppose a case could be made that he was at Birmingham.
Baldwin also did some post-grad work after Cambridge at Mason College, which as you say became Birmingham University
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
People are really losing their mind out there. I guess the interesting question is whether this is a purely organic process or whether it is being driven by malign actors (eg anti-Western state actors). My money would be on the latter, although I guess perhaps that is also a conspiracy theory!
My guess is that people were always losing their minds out there, it's just they weren't able to shove it in our faces like they can now on social media.
Growing up there were always stories about how 30% of Americans thought the moon landings were faked, or 50% of people reported seeing UFOs or somesuch.
LOL. I mean, it's not a competition, but you're probably right.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
It is (or could/should) be about the actual costs of "green" policies, albeit with the Cons eliding green policies and actual clean air, which latter no one could surely object to.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
That leads into the conspiracy theories....First ULEZ, then what next will the Lizard Illuminati bring in? Digital cash, then they'll ban you from travelling outside your allotted zone, then they'll take your car off you. Next, they'll be feeding you soylent green and harvesting your body. Those sort of views are gaining traction.
Green policies cost money. For perfectly sensible outcomes, cleaner air in the case of ULEZ, but there is a cost. So far very few politicians are prepared to outline what that cost might be.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
How many of those >10-year old diesels, owned by low-income households, are worth more than than the £2,000 grant?
Very many see my post above or jump onto auto trader
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
Speaking from a position of favouring the ULEZ but isn't the problem with Khan's comments that he is talking about London as a whole when the debate is about the extension into the outer areas. It does seem a bit obviously disingenuous.
I think this one is pretty simple - authorities set policies that apply within their geographic area of authority. London sets policies that benefit London. If ULEZ on the outer ring causes economic problems then they will balance that against the other benefits gained by the policy. If.
I have no problem with voters anywhere setting a policy to their benefit within the bounds of the legal framework in which they operate. Its democracy. And what Harper is proposing is to abolish democracy. Voters have a legal power, which he wants to overturn because he doesn't like how they voted.
Yep. As I say I think on balance the ULEZ is a good idea but it has been poorly implemented in many respects and I was making a specific point about Khan's rather cavalier use of statistics.
The problem to me, is the mechanism. What is needed is a system, as used in other cities around the world, that is gradual and progressive. Such as system will be needed for congestion charging, long after all cars are ZEVs
Comments
Bizarrely, all but one of them went to Oxford as well. It remains one of just three universities to provide PMs the others being Edinburgh (two) and Cambridge (all the rest who had degrees).
Starmer of course was at Leeds although he did a conversion course of some kind at Oxford.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174521-trump-drops-6-points-in-post-debate-gop-poll/
You were, and still are, wrong about the no fly zone.
The "limited acceptable range of opinion" you speak of - isn't that just pushing the more interesting positions with a stick to check for facts / realism / sanity?
Listening to Khan on Sky this morning re ULEZ he said 'about half of Londoners do not own a car' and in those few words he showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people outside of London getting on with their lives and running their businesses
I know there is some lifeboat-clinging going on with Tories/fellow travellers on this issue. But unless London is going to be transformed blue, with Labour seats falling like dominos to the anti-ULEZ surge, and that then replicated across the rest of the country as the red wall decided that No! they will not go back to voting Labour because of it, then you're deep down the rabbit hole and need to start backing up.
Electoral salvation does not lie below you. No matter how frenetically the digging is carried out.
And please do not quote 'lifeboat - clinging' as it really is not a joking matter, not least if you have family actively engaged in the RNLI saving lives at sea
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38191-w
The recent development of techniques to sequence ancient DNA has provided valuable insights into the civilisations that came before us. However, the full potential of these methods has yet to be realised. We extracted ancient DNA from a recently exposed fracture surface of a clay brick deriving from the palace of king Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) in Nimrud, Iraq. We detected 34 unique taxonomic groups of plants. With this research we have made the pioneering discovery that ancient DNA, effectively protected from contamination inside a mass of clay, can successfully be extracted from a 2900-year-old clay brick. ..
Doesn't this form the basis of a claim against the Danish museum which currently holds the artefact ?
...It is possible to date this specific brick within a decade due to its inscription, which identifies it as: “The property of the palace of Ashurnasirpal, king of Assyria”. ..
You have to judge someone by their track record. Many moons ago, Hancock wrote "The Mars Mystery", which took the infamous "Face on Mars" as the basis of the idea that Mars once housed a society.
The "Face on Mars" was an image taken by a Viking orbiter in 1976 that seemed to show a face:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(Mars)#/media/File:Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg
From this, Hancock weaved an entire book about a Martian civilisation. Sadly for him, later probes with a higher resolution give a rather different picture. It is a classic case of pareidolia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(Mars)#/media/File:Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg
Hancock is a charlatan, followed by the gullible.
I have no doubt that ULEZ is unpopular with a minority of London voters. But you can't dismiss Khan as out of touch for quoting facts. Half of Londoners do not have a car. You and I live in places where almost everyone has a car, so our needs are very different to their needs.
What is genuinely hilarious about this is that Mark Harper is writing to Starmer asking him to withdraw the policy. On headed "Secretary of State for Transport" paper. Citing that as SofS he has no power to intervene.
Well this is both embarrassing and factually wrong. If the SofS has no power unless he can "fix Labour's 1999 Greater London Authority Act" then you have to wonder which party has been in government these last 13 years? Once again we have clueless powerless Tories blaming Labour for their own incompetence as a government.
https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1695703292263739516
And what is he trying to "fix"? Both the Mayor and the Greater London Authority are elected. Westminster doesn't like what they are doing (despite being openly directed to do this by a previous Tory SofS) and wants to abolish their powers. You think Londoners will support having their independence stymied? History shows people do not like being told they voted wrong by the loser...
Last time I heard he is a Lib Dem
Don't try whataboutery here, look at my last post and lets go back to the utter ineptitude of the Tory government. 13 years they have had to "fix Labour's Act". By which they mean taking power away from London now that they have lost.
It is highly controversial and has been mishandled by Khan despite Starmer asking him to reconsider
I have no idea how this plays out politically but your party in Sutton is against the expansion
One of my favourite groups is Google Earth Interesting Sites/Anomalies. I learned today about anti DEW blue roofs in China, and how US Navy direct energy weapons caused the recent Hawaiian wild fires.
Even people I know well in real life, people I used to work with, are reposting stuff. One lad who I used to think of as being a solid bloke gets regularly banned or factchecked posts taken down. He's convinced adrenochrome is a thing. He hates Gates/Obama/Schwab....even George Clooney is one of illuminati.
It's getting crazy out there!
Khan has taken a decision about London, which seems to have majority support amongst Londoners. That's how this sort of thing is meant to work, I thought.
Pointing out that car ownership is relatively uncommon in London isn't out of touch, it's explaining the context to viewers who don't live here.
It seems possible that his problem in casting himself too much as heir to, and proxy for, Trump is many Republicans say, "Great... that confirms why I am voting for Trump."
Meanwhile Haley, and to a lesser extent Pence and DeSantis, have had a boost from credible debate performances which emphasised their own merits.
All small-beer compared with Trump's dominant polling, and maybe Ramaswamy is thinking his slavish approach will pay dividends if Trump becomes unavailable for selection at some point over the next year which, realistically, is the most likely route for all GOP candidates.
If the claim is that [just under] half don't have a car, so the other half don't either - then yes that is out of touch. If you're using transport to get to an office block without carrying anything else with you so a train is suitable, or if you're using transport to go to different locations carrying lots of equipment you need with you for your work for example, then you have completely different requirements for transportation.
Similarly if the attitude is half don't have a car so the same should be said across the rest of the UK, then that too would be out of touch.
Your party (you are a Tory fellow traveller, not a member) is in government and has been for 13 years. Not the LibDems. Not Labour.
We have a policy which was not only Tory policy when the Tory was mayor, but was demanded by a recent Tory SofS for Transport.
A policy which is popular with the majority in London. Where half of Londoners as a statement of fact do not have a car.
Having both implemented the policy and then blackmailed the Mayor to expand it, the Tories now have decided they are against it. And the blame clearly sits with Starmer because beast as he is he has prevented them for implementing a "fix" for the Labour law. That he was doing so for 5 years before he entered parliament shows what a monster Starmer really is. A "fix" which takes powers away from the elected Mayor and GLA to impose a policy which goes against the express wishes of Londoners.
Is this really today's hill to die on?
I have to say it is true for all parties that the constituency matters in terms of view. For example, Boris Johnson was a strong advocate for ULEZ as Mayor of London (where he had to appeal to inner Londoners where car ownership is relatively low and pollution relatively high), but Tory councillors in Kent are naturally much more sceptical.
Unless we have a start point based in reality, our politics goes wrong. And it has gone very wrong because nobody wants to cite reality as Khan did.
o/t but interesting conservation (and evolutionary) story. Though all birds, apart from some chicken and duck etc breeds, are 'prehistoric' anyway ...
Roads are a solution in a lot of places where we both want new ones building. But that isn't the case for inner London. We had a lucky escape not following America down the lunatic path of sticking motorways through the centre of most towns and cities.
This does have some real consequences - it is a part of the mechanism by which we prevent housing being built in this country.
More interesting is the Lib Dem conundrum, with constituencies and targets in the suburbs. This has played out as anti-LTN position here in Edinburgh, and perhaps anti-ULEZ around London, but there must be a risk they lose a chunk of their vote to the Greens elsewhere if they take those positions.
Remember that this government proposed a bill to make Big_G's son and all the other brave RNLI volunteers criminals if they rescued drowning people who turned out to be migrants. I remember posting repeatedly *in defence* of RNLI volunteers and being countered by pro-Tory posters - Big_G included - who support the general policy direction of the government and who hadn't in his case actually read and understood what was being proposed.
So I absolutely support the RNLI. Against the people who wanted to criminalise them. And the people who supported that policy...
There's been lots of Project Fear, which will either turn out true or false.
There have been frantic legal attempts to overturn a decision, which didn't work and looked a bit silly.
But it's now a historic fact.
On topic... people who drive 10 year old diesel vehicles regularly into London and who have shit credit seems to be an unlikely avenue to electoral recovery in London for the tories. Now ULEZ expansion is here, is the tory policy to cancel it? Of course not, so then it becomes a slightly dry argument about managerialism regarding a London only transport policy. If this is the tory l******t then they are fucked.
I share some of your concerns over NIMBYism, but your repeated assertions that this is a trait particular to one party is merely your usual one-eyed nonsense.
So you get an inverse effect at the other end of income scale - where you can be rich enough not to need a car.
At the the bottom you have people struggling with a trolley of shopping across 4 buses to get home.
And somewhere in between, in outer London, you have lots of people who need a car to live where they do, much in the way that you need a car if you live miles out in the countryside.
One thing that distorts views of London, is that nearly no one visits those suburban outer areas casually. Non-Londoners are usually visiting the centre - whether for work or entertainement.
They would depend more on Tory tactical votes while those groups vote SNP
I think the clue to the solution is in your post.
Forget ULEZ, forget LTNs, city and town centre roads are now unusable simply due to volume of traffic. The cost in time and productivity to UK Plc must be off the scale. And yet the Tories see a vote in it so Starmer panics. Good for Khan, telling them all to f-off!
And I've not been proposing motorways for inner cities either. I accept that inner cities may need different policies to suburbs and towns and the rest of the country - but the overwhelming majority of homes are in that rest of the country, so that's what we should be talking about much more.
Our political conversation is far too dominated by inner cities, because of our London based media in no small part I imagine.
46% of London households have no car. So "half" as Khan claimed is simple reality, not showing he is "out of touch" as you claimed. The policy is popular in London as polls show. The policy is one which this government supported as recently as 2021. Expansion of ULEZ was a condition of the government bailing out TfL from its Covid bankruptcy.
So given that this government supports the policy, why is it now against it? Why is Harper writing to Starmer demanding that he withdraw the policy? Complaining that the Tories have failed to "fix Labour's Act" despite having 13 years to do it?
Could it be simple gross hypocrisy and political opportunism? They had no issue with the policy or the GLA Act until now. But with a political lifeboat issue to cling to they need to blame someone else.
But the broader point is that if you want green/net zero/endlessly frolicking polar bears then there is a cost and the cost is coming to you. In this instance it is coming to the group which can least afford it (ie likely not a PB contributor amongst them).
That is where a fertile battleground lies.
Apart from the decades of particulates being sucked into Glaswegian lungs, the construction of the M8 destroyed a rather nice Victorian/Edwardian area of the city. This could be a pic of Berlin ‘45.
I have no problem with voters anywhere setting a policy to their benefit within the bounds of the legal framework in which they operate. Its democracy. And what Harper is proposing is to abolish democracy. Voters have a legal power, which he wants to overturn because he doesn't like how they voted.
rather nice Victorian/Edwardianslums of Liverpool and the conflicting emotions that that provokes.- Tram networks
- "Bicycling"
- Car insurance
In LD v SNP marginals the LDs are actually the right of centre option and the SNP the left of centre and anti tuition fees option
This means clear joining instructions that off topic stuff, abuse, conspiracy theories etc are banned and that those breaking the rules are also banned.
This seems to work well. Group sizes vary from a few dozen to tens of thousands (the medieval and tudor buidings page which I believe a few other PB members are on being a good example) but having strict, rapidly enforced rules keeps things pleasant.
I am always minded on Facebook that there will be a massive spread of opinion and that most people on there are not there for politics or conspiracy theories etc. It is not PB so I act accordingly.
I do have relatives who do nothing but post the sorts of stuff you are talking about and I tend to have them on permanent mute.
Chamberlain is a more complex one because first Mason College (as it then was) was a technical college not a university college at the time he went there, and also he never graduated. But I suppose a case could be made that he was at Birmingham.
In this case, the cost is falling not on the EV-driving (for one of their cars) PB constituency, but on those with 10-yr old diesel cars who are likely the group least able to afford an updated replacement.
That is the nettle that should be grasped and is where if the Cons decide to fight it, the battle should take place.
My understanding is he attended some extra mural lectures as a member of the public but from the age of 16 was apprenticed to the family business.
Edit: even a tram for those whose tastes run that way!
Haven’t voted for a Conservative candidate in a long, long time.
It is just that this particular policy is going to affect (hundreds of?) thousands of not super well off people, perhaps they are JAMs, running their government-recommended 10yr old diesels. You can buy a 10-yr old diesel Merc estate (68k miles) off auto-trader for £15k. And the govt is offering £2k.
"Pollution rules could change to ease housebuilding - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66642878
1) overturning democracy
2) the legal limits of voting for something in the Commons vs the constitutional structures of the country.
Personally, I greatly dislike attempts to legislate through the courts. The American example of turning the Supreme Court into the premier legislative assembly is an utter disaster.
On the other hand - who would give up the right to legally challenge laws?
Plenty of people need a car but aren't going to go anywhere near London.
You could sell it and get a 16 plate 308 Peugeot ULEZ compliant HDI with change left over.
The real issue judging by various Nick Ferrari phone ins seems to be getting a ULEZ compliant work van. They do seem to be like rocking horse shit.
Growing up there were always stories about how 30% of Americans thought the moon landings were faked, or 50% of people reported seeing UFOs or somesuch.
Ok folks, I’m in the middle of writing an excruciatingly detailed rundown for y’all, which will be out on @lawfare tomorrow.
But here’s a few high-level thoughts on the Meadows hearing: 1/..
https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1696346840797454788
He's not a convincing witness, but the hurdle for removing a case to another court in this manner is not a high one.