How punters now see the next election – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Go after those 4x4s and SUVs. Also lets start having camera fines for dangerous tailgaiting seeing as the police have given up enforcing this.Malmesbury said:
And some council vehicles….Sandpit said:
An anti-pollution scheme that targeted vans rather than cars, would likely have enjoyed much wider support.MattW said:
Missed the edit deadline.MattW said:
Correct me if I'm wrong - I think business vehicles only have a short-term exemption, so that one will fix itself.rcs1000 said:
I think most of the pollution now comes from delivery vehicles, though.Stuartinromford said:
It's been a good idea inside the North/South circular. It was a good idea when Boris introduced it in the very centre of London.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
There is a cost to society of super polluting vehicles, and it seems fair that the users of those vehicles pay it. By all means question the exact price, or the exact location- though it's not obvious where else you can draw the line.
But "polluter pays" is exactly what should be happening.
We also now have a "zero emissions / lower emissions" sector of the delivery market - either using ZEV or e-cycle microvans (which look very like the Postman Pat van). Amazon have trials running, for example.
(Corporate Vid with plinkety-plunk music): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLf7lCPSm9g
The other thing to do is to remove the exemptions on taxes, such as congestion charge, for vehicles costing more than £50k - see the stuff in the US and elsewhere. Tax breaks on super expensive ZEVs are no longer required. Time to shift the incentives to cheaper vehicles.
Use the money raised from that to subsidise a further scrapage scheme.0 -
That's me told.Luckyguy1983 said:
It is a great pity that a poor girl's sad death with a very serious illness is being used as a battering ram against opposition to a deeply illiberal policy that could affect the lives and life chances of thousands of children. Leaves a nasty taste.Miklosvar said:
Ella Kissi-Debrah was 9 when she died of, according to the inquest, air pollution in London. 9 years is a few.LostPassword said:
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.Sandpit said:
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.
Write to this address to put the record straight about the cause of death
Dr Philip Barlow. Assistant Coroner. London Inner South Coroner's Court. 1 Tennis Street. SE1 1YD2 -
The people who "dont exist" are the people above the benefit level who are struggling financially.OnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.3 -
The numbers of cars affected must be comparatively small as the average age of cars on the road in the UK is 8 years. The tories couldn't give a tiny shiny fuck about people in outer London who regularly drive cars between 17 and 40 years old, they just think they have a wedge issue they can use against Labour.MattW said:
1 - Not very convinced. In London a minority of people own cars, and it correlates with household income. An even smaller minority drive into London. Given that petrol cars since 2006 are compliant, replacement cost does not have to be expensive.Malmesbury said:
The problems with this areMattW said:
I'm unrepentent on my stance on this - it's the "polluter pays" principle, which has been a thing for decades, applied to the individual, and has been coming down the track for a long time. The numbers affected will be a tiny proportion - well under 10% of 2.6 million vehicles, which equates to a tiny proportion of voters.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
It quite reminds me of complaints we hear about the need to improve energy efficiency of our own homes - lots of complaining, but *that* policy was first announced around 2012 by the coalition government.
1) the taxation and cost of replacing vehicles falls on the poorer section of society.
2) Meanwhile the owner of a £90k EV pays nothing - even parking in Central London for very little, by using a charging bay. A game that is played is to park up, connect the charger, then not actually register/pay. Free parking!
3) the polluters pays principe would mean that payment should be connected to the pollution. It is a flat rate charge, rather than targeting the vehicles that actually produces the embody pollution.
4) the owners of compliant ICE vehicles are convinced, by experience, that they will be next
Once again, we have the Politicians Syllogism
1) We must do something
2) This is something
3) Therefore, we must do This
Won't somebody think of the poor 55 plate drivers!
4 -
[innocent face]ThomasNashe said:
Fortunately for Khan, the Tories have selected a complete no hoper as their candidate (again).Sunil_Prasannan said:
I still intend to vote for Wes at the GE, but will NOT vote for Sadiq at the Mayoral election. Might just sit on my hands.LostPassword said:
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.Sandpit said:
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.0 -
The argument of 'just update your 20 year old diesel banger' doesn't take into account that ULEZ standards can be changed at will. Is anybody here really naive enough to think that the authorities would spend millions installing vast surveillance infrastructure and the ability to fine motorists, for just a few year's usage against a few cars that will soon be scrapped anyway? Whereupon there are no more lucrative fines and ivy grows over the cameras? Of course they won't. The restrictions will tighten over time. Arguing that there's hardly any drawback here is the equivalent of welcoming 'temporary income tax' being introduced by William Pitt.5
-
That won't matter for the Assembly vote though, where Labour should have a majority and may well end up without.ThomasNashe said:
Fortunately for Khan, the Tories have selected a complete no hoper as their candidate (again).Sunil_Prasannan said:
I still intend to vote for Wes at the GE, but will NOT vote for Sadiq at the Mayoral election. Might just sit on my hands.LostPassword said:
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.Sandpit said:
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.1 -
OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?4
-
...
A £100 2002 Ford Fiesta 1.3 (petrol) is ULEZ compliant. Granted a 2014 Range Rover diesel isn't. So the argument is spurious to say the least.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.0 -
I also have a ten year old ULEZ compliant petrol car. It is worth more than it was in 2019, at least partly if not mostly because of ULEZ.Stuartinromford said:
And it it were the ten year old petrol car (ULEZ compliant) currently on my driveway?malcolmg said:
If a Tesla then humungously more expensiveStuartinromford said:
How much more expensive do you think a ULEZ compliant car is than a non compliant one?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.1 -
A
The stuff they replaced lead with in petrol wasn’t made out of angel’s smiles.Gallowgate said:
What do you mean?Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't disagree with your overall message but would point out that I believe unleaded petrol as it has been formulated since the ban on lead is probably going to turn out to be one of the greatest environmental crimes of he last few decades.RochdalePioneers said:
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate.Sandpit said:
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.RochdalePioneers said:
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.Sandpit said:
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.RochdalePioneers said:
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense wayOnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
Seat Belts
Drink Drive laws
Unleaded petrol
Fuel efficiency
Vehicle security
Fun story - every now and again, someone would ask the oil company I used to work for for some of the WWII formulations of aviation fuel. Because they (the oil company) invented much of it.
Crazy octane ratings. And made from a witches brew of horrors. Benzene and Toluene were the least of it…
Every time, the refinery guys said fuck no. Apparently, after the war, the number of deaths among the guys who worked those fractionation columns had an effect on the company pension plan - it was the actuaries who said WTAF.1 -
Good. They should be.Luckyguy1983 said:The restrictions will tighten over time.
0 -
There is a lot of study - well researched and peer reviewed especially in Germany - that the chemicals we added to replace lead are responsible for the collapse in insect populations. This is not to say I wanted to see the retention of lead but they should have done a lot more research on what they were using to replace it.Gallowgate said:
What do you mean?Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't disagree with your overall message but would point out that I believe unleaded petrol as it has been formulated since the ban on lead is probably going to turn out to be one of the greatest environmental crimes of he last few decades.RochdalePioneers said:
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate.Sandpit said:
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.RochdalePioneers said:
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.Sandpit said:
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.RochdalePioneers said:
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense wayOnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
Seat Belts
Drink Drive laws
Unleaded petrol
Fuel efficiency
Vehicle security
It is one reason why I will be glad to see petrol engines phased out as soon as possible.
2 -
They will anyway, it'll be EV or GTFO come 2040.Luckyguy1983 said:The argument of 'just update your 20 year old diesel banger' doesn't take into account that ULEZ standards can be changed at will. Is anybody here really naive enough to think that the authorities would spend millions installing vast surveillance infrastructure and the ability to fine motorists, for just a few year's usage against a few cars that will soon be scrapped anyway? Whereupon there are no more lucrative fines and ivy grows over the cameras? Of course they won't. The restrictions will tighten over time. Arguing that there's hardly any drawback here is the equivalent of welcoming 'temporary income tax' being introduced by William Pitt.
0 -
Is this because the government have been really really rubbish, and are a bunch of infighting incompetents once led by the former local MP who has made a career out of lying and bumbling?Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
1 -
On the Uxbridge by-election:
Good, overlooked observation by someone in Labour: Brunel has 20,000 students, currently on summer holidays. Student halls empty.
Had this by-election happened in term-time, the story would likely be very different today. And we wouldn’t be talking about ULEZ.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1682336341122592768
(The actual numbers are far smaller due to where halls are and some students not being registered there, but a material factor?)2 -
People who use a 20 year old Range Rover diesel as a dog car are understandably up in arms. Though they're not the "working poor" that the right endlessly offer as the victim.Mexicanpete said:...
A £100 2002 Ford Fiesta 1.3 (petrol) is ULEZ compliant. Granted a 2014 Range Rover diesel isn't. So the argument is spurious to say the least.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
1 -
Assembly uses PR and no party has ever had a majority in it's existence.david_herdson said:
That won't matter for the Assembly vote though, where Labour should have a majority and may well end up without.ThomasNashe said:
Fortunately for Khan, the Tories have selected a complete no hoper as their candidate (again).Sunil_Prasannan said:
I still intend to vote for Wes at the GE, but will NOT vote for Sadiq at the Mayoral election. Might just sit on my hands.LostPassword said:
The point of the policy would be to speed up the adoption of cars with lower particulate and NOx emissions, something that will happen over time anyway, as the standards for new vehicles are tightened and those new vehicles enter the second-hand market.Sandpit said:
It’s something that can make sense in the centre of London, where congestion and pollution are a problem, but much less so in outer London, a lot of which is quite rural and lacking in public transport infrastructure.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
So, at best, it speeds up this transition by a few years, costing a lot of people a significant chunk of money and hassle having to replace their car a few years earlier than they otherwise would do.
I'm going to break with my lefty comrades on pb.com over this and question whether it's worth the hassle.0 -
On UNS on current polls Labour should have won Uxbridge by 5000 to 10000 even more than they won Selby bySunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
1 -
Which is what all proponents of the scheme should be saying. But because that would rightly go down like a bag of sick, we're going with the 'will only affect diesel bangers' rubbish.Dura_Ace said:
Good. They should be.Luckyguy1983 said:The restrictions will tighten over time.
0 -
2 -
But UNS is tosh, as we all know.HYUFD said:
On UNS on current polls Labour should have won Uxbridge by 5000 to 10000 even more than they won Selby bySunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
2 -
A
They won because it was an issue. Not because it was The Issue in 37 foot tall letters of flame.Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
Car taxation in London has become extremely regressive. Regressive taxation became unfashionable in the days of the Estates General - 1780 something.
Let us come up with a pollution taxation system that is progressive as a whole.1 -
Then there will be a reason to fine a subset of those cars.Miklosvar said:
They will anyway, it'll be EV or GTFO come 2040.Luckyguy1983 said:The argument of 'just update your 20 year old diesel banger' doesn't take into account that ULEZ standards can be changed at will. Is anybody here really naive enough to think that the authorities would spend millions installing vast surveillance infrastructure and the ability to fine motorists, for just a few year's usage against a few cars that will soon be scrapped anyway? Whereupon there are no more lucrative fines and ivy grows over the cameras? Of course they won't. The restrictions will tighten over time. Arguing that there's hardly any drawback here is the equivalent of welcoming 'temporary income tax' being introduced by William Pitt.
0 -
Personally I find parts of the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy, and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouragingOnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
.
Now off out. Have a good day, all.0 -
ThanksThomasNashe said:
Incidentally, I hope your call on Uxbridge has been properly acknowledged? Once again, you’ve demonstrated your unparalleled insight into the Tory mind - and I think that’s helped make a lot of punters better off than they would otherwise have been.HYUFD said:
Trump would be as hard on China over Taiwan and trade as Biden, if not harder.kle4 said:On Trump and Ukraine we're supposed to believe he means the opposite of what he intimates on this issue for some reason. Outside a few Senate hawks the GOP seem to be cooling on the conflict, and you have to look at what appeals to the base. Trump's appeal is to end it immediately, and there's only one way that happens.
However he would push for a deal between Putin and Ukraine as would most of the GOP with a few exceptions like Pence and Romney
Lots that you write that I disagree with profoundly, but it’d be churlish not to recognise your value to this site.4 -
That's get the f out, not a Ferrari homologation special!Luckyguy1983 said:
Then there will be a reason to fine a subset of those cars.Miklosvar said:
They will anyway, it'll be EV or GTFO come 2040.Luckyguy1983 said:The argument of 'just update your 20 year old diesel banger' doesn't take into account that ULEZ standards can be changed at will. Is anybody here really naive enough to think that the authorities would spend millions installing vast surveillance infrastructure and the ability to fine motorists, for just a few year's usage against a few cars that will soon be scrapped anyway? Whereupon there are no more lucrative fines and ivy grows over the cameras? Of course they won't. The restrictions will tighten over time. Arguing that there's hardly any drawback here is the equivalent of welcoming 'temporary income tax' being introduced by William Pitt.
1 -
People will 'go green' if it makes their lives better, cleaner and cheaper - that's why wind and solar energy have had such a massive increase in take up over the last 15 years and EVs are starting to come into play. They won't if it leads to taxation, hectoring, and restrictions in how they live their everyday lives: they will tell you to fuck off, and rightly so.
It's remarkable that most environmental lobby are yet to learn this very basic lesson.4 -
Maybe a minor factor. Students aren’t great voters at the best of times, and I daresay a lot wouldn’t have even noticed there was a by-election (worth remembering that only a small minority of students get actively political, but because the NUS churns out daftness on a regular basis it is easy to assume that it’s a highly politicised and radical bloc. Data shows otherwise.)MattW said:On the Uxbridge by-election:
Good, overlooked observation by someone in Labour: Brunel has 20,000 students, currently on summer holidays. Student halls empty.
Had this by-election happened in term-time, the story would likely be very different today. And we wouldn’t be talking about ULEZ.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1682336341122592768
(The actual numbers are far smaller due to where halls are and some students not being registered there, but a material factor?)
If more Greens had voted tactically it would have been much tighter. I’m a Green myself but would have voted Labour in Uxbridge.
0 -
Isn't one of the concerns over the ULEZ proposal the worry that the next step will be road pricing in the whole of London - regardless of whether your car is compliant, green or whatever. I'm sure I read recently that Khan had asked his officials to look at the practicalities of imposing this, the camera network already largely being in place. So in addition to car tax, congestion charges, high petrol prices, fuel duty and VAT, another cost. It sits ill with concerns about the cost of living when these costs are - for many - an essential part of day to day living and feed into other costs of course.
Road pricing may be what's needed instead of fuel duty. But if so that is for national government rather than for the Mayor, no?3 -
As an amber diamond tweeted last night “it’s completely cringe, we know it’s completely cringe, and we embrace it”. Davey has done a good job in this respect. Part of Swinson’s problem was she took herself and the party too seriously.kjh said:Just seen the LD post election winning stunt. It is worth electing them just to see these. In terms of awfulness there is little to compare which they seem to be embracing wholeheartedly.
1 -
Tax cars by weight^4, as that’s the formula for road damage. Need to encourage manufacturers to sell lighter cars, once they’re mostly all electric powered.Malmesbury said:A
They won because it was an issue. Not because it was The Issue in 37 foot tall letters of flame.Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
Car taxation in London has become extremely regressive. Regressive taxation became unfashionable in the days of the Estates General - 1780 something.
Let us come up with a pollution taxation system that is progressive as a whole.4 -
Its an intetesting thing what level of income is needed to live comfortably in the uk assuming a single person. If you have rent or mortgage to pay i would say 30 grand in the north but likely 50 grand in London. There are many who earn below this some well below.noneoftheabove said:
The people who "dont exist" are the people above the benefit level who are struggling financially.OnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.0 -
Cricinfo: “Good morning thrill-seekers, and welcome back to Old Trafford for live drip-by-drip coverage of the fourth day of the fourth Test.”5
-
Every income group has more political influence than the group below on a per capita basis. The tiny group of super rich who donate vast sums to the Tory party have more influence, controlling for their size, than the group of comfortably off people who have two foreign holidays a year and send their kids to private school (the people the Telegraph call middle class). They in turn have more influence, controlling for their relatively small size, than the much bigger group of middle class people in various white collar professions (the people the Telegraph call the liberal elite). This group in turn has more influence per capita than a larger group of working class and lower middle class people, many of whom are struggling to get by, who are actually the median voters. Neither main party really understands this group but the Labour party's failing is arguably greater because these are the people whose interests the party was created to defend. And this group in turn has a much greater political influence than those who are genuinely poor, often disabled or working minimum wage jobs, navigating a labyrinthine benefit system and frequently treated as some kind of enemy within by the Tory party, while Labour takes their vote for granted.noneoftheabove said:
The people who "dont exist" are the people above the benefit level who are struggling financially.OnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.4 -
This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.MattW said:
Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouragingOnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims. .
Now off out. Have a good day, all.
Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.0 -
The congestion charge, which has been a huge success, was originally brought in by the Mayor.Cyclefree said:Isn't one of the concerns over the ULEZ proposal the worry that the next step will be road pricing in the whole of London - regardless of whether your car is compliant, green or whatever. I'm sure I read recently that Khan had asked his officials to look at the practicalities of imposing this, the camera network already largely being in place. So in addition to car tax, congestion charges, high petrol prices, fuel duty and VAT, another cost. It sits ill with concerns about the cost of living when these costs are - for many - an essential part of day to day living and feed into other costs of course.
Road pricing may be what's needed instead of fuel duty. But if so that is for national government rather than for the Mayor, no?0 -
Or maybe Mileage * Weight ^ 4 since road damage also depends on how much you drive it.Sandpit said:
Tax cars by weight^4, as that’s the formula for road damage. Need to encourage manufacturers to sell lighter cars, once they’re mostly all electric powered.Malmesbury said:A
They won because it was an issue. Not because it was The Issue in 37 foot tall letters of flame.Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
Car taxation in London has become extremely regressive. Regressive taxation became unfashionable in the days of the Estates General - 1780 something.
Let us come up with a pollution taxation system that is progressive as a whole.0 -
£30k is tight in Manchester; you’d be renting unless Bank of M&D could stump up a deposit.Octopus said:
Its an intetesting thing what level of income is needed to live comfortably in the uk assuming a single person. If you have rent or mortgage to pay i would say 30 grand in the north but likely 50 grand in London. There are many who earn below this some well below.noneoftheabove said:
The people who "dont exist" are the people above the benefit level who are struggling financially.OnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.0 -
If I may just speak about something sunny for a moment: I took my son into Cambridge yesterday to do some shopping. It happened to be a graduation day (Kings, perhaps), and lots of smiling young men and women in gowns were walking along the streets, accompanied by beaming, proud parents and siblings.
It's always wonderful to see such events. So much potential, so many wonderful future lives ahead of them. It's made me feel really positive about life and the world.8 -
Actually, people will pay to go Green. They will spend money to save the planet, by spending more.Casino_Royale said:People will 'go green' if it makes their lives better, cleaner and cheaper - that's why wind and solar energy have had such a massive increase in take up over the last 15 years and EVs are starting to come into play. They won't if it leads to taxation, hectoring, and restrictions in how they live their everyday lives: they will tell you to fuck off, and rightly so.
It's remarkable that most environmental lobby are yet to learn this very basic lesson.
The comments I’ve had from people in outer West London (friends of my wife, mainly) is that a) cars are essential where they live, due to the public transport structure b) fairness. They see the very rich paying nothing to drive in London, while they wait for the dreaded MOT and the verdict that comes with it.
They are generally a good deal poorer than us. If I bother with a car (not got one currently), the next one will be an EV - probably spend up to £50k. I live 200 yards from the District line, with a full sized supermarket about the same distance away. A thriving local high street at the end of the road is the cherry on the cake.
ULEZ is great for *me*. No downsides.1 -
True Manchester is one of the most expensive places in the north. But i was talking renting not necessarily buying.Ghedebrav said:
£30k is tight in Manchester; you’d be renting unless Bank of M&D could stump up a deposit.Octopus said:
Its an intetesting thing what level of income is needed to live comfortably in the uk assuming a single person. If you have rent or mortgage to pay i would say 30 grand in the north but likely 50 grand in London. There are many who earn below this some well below.noneoftheabove said:
The people who "dont exist" are the people above the benefit level who are struggling financially.OnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.1 -
I don't disagree with any of that, but it is the just about managings who get the most criticism for trying to defend their interests.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Every income group has more political influence than the group below on a per capita basis. The tiny group of super rich who donate vast sums to the Tory party have more influence, controlling for their size, than the group of comfortably off people who have two foreign holidays a year and send their kids to private school (the people the Telegraph call middle class). They in turn have more influence, controlling for their relatively small size, than the much bigger group of middle class people in various white collar professions (the people the Telegraph call the liberal elite). This group in turn has more influence per capita than a larger group of working class and lower middle class people, many of whom are struggling to get by, who are actually the median voters. Neither main party really understands this group but the Labour party's failing is arguably greater because these are the people whose interests the party was created to defend. And this group in turn has a much greater political influence than those who are genuinely poor, often disabled or working minimum wage jobs, navigating a labyrinthine benefit system and frequently treated as some kind of enemy within by the Tory party, while Labour takes their vote for granted.noneoftheabove said:
The people who "dont exist" are the people above the benefit level who are struggling financially.OnlyLivingBoy said:
What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.RochdalePioneers said:
We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.
The poorest do have people in the media and politics speaking up for them. It is not hard to empathise with the poorest and think we need to do more.
The JAMs are not as interesting media wise, and when they complain, they get told well what about the poorest, and the solutions offered to them by the rich, such as buy second hand cars for <£1k, or move somewhere cheaper are not really practical or desirable to them.1 -
Would we? I doubt it. There is no demand for French reparations for the Norman invasion and near-genocidal harrying of the north. No-one is calling for British art or the Magna Carta to be returned from American galleries. Even much of the foreign pressure for return of artefacts is exaggerated by UK wokesters from small national campaigns. Look at the Benin bronzes returned to Nigeria, which country shrugged and handed them to its king who will hide them away rather than proudly display them in a new national museum.Carnyx said:
Nobody's worrying about the small stuff in the research collections. It's the big stuff like the Elgin Marbles. You'd go bananas if the Crown of Charles II was stolen by the Indians and on display in Delhi. Or the tomb of Henry whoever he was was stolen from Westminster Abbey and in a Greek museum.HYUFD said:
Most of the big western museums would have few artefacts left if only ones from that nation were allowedkle4 said:
I'm baffled why people would agree to visit museums considered to be full of stolen goods if its an opinion which is more than a gag.ydoethur said:
The governments of India and Pakistan have entered a protest that she is wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translatorGallowgate said:
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us aboutBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
The Koh-i-Noor is in the Crown Jewels of England so not *all* Britain's stolen goods are in the British Museum.
4 -
Even among car owners, who are a minority in London, I doubt it is regressive because the cars most likely to be hit are big diesel cars, which are mostly owned by richer people. But I'd be happy to accept hard evidence to the contrary if you have it. Given the correlation between car ownership and income it is certainly not regressive for the population as a whole. And if you factor in that the poor are most likely to live in areas of high air pollution the progressivist of the policy only increases.Malmesbury said:A
They won because it was an issue. Not because it was The Issue in 37 foot tall letters of flame.Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
Car taxation in London has become extremely regressive. Regressive taxation became unfashionable in the days of the Estates General - 1780 something.
Let us come up with a pollution taxation system that is progressive as a whole.
The real problem the policy has politically is that the benefits are diffuse while the costs are highly concentrated.0 -
I love how the right wing media describes middle class as a detached house in surrey and kids at private school. No this group are the privileged upper upper middle class one step below the seriously wealthy.2 -
Everyone will have their own view but some have access to sufficient resources to make these choices or, if taxation and regulation kick-in, to be largely unaffected by them as well as they can afford it.Malmesbury said:
Actually, people will pay to go Green. They will spend money to save the planet, by spending more.Casino_Royale said:People will 'go green' if it makes their lives better, cleaner and cheaper - that's why wind and solar energy have had such a massive increase in take up over the last 15 years and EVs are starting to come into play. They won't if it leads to taxation, hectoring, and restrictions in how they live their everyday lives: they will tell you to fuck off, and rightly so.
It's remarkable that most environmental lobby are yet to learn this very basic lesson.
The comments I’ve had from people in outer West London (friends of my wife, mainly) is that a) cars are essential where they live, due to the public transport structure b) fairness. They see the very rich paying nothing to drive in London, while they wait for the dreaded MOT and the verdict that comes with it.
They are generally a good deal poorer than us. If I bother with a car (not got one currently), the next one will be an EV - probably spend up to £50k. I live 200 yards from the District line, with a full sized supermarket about the same distance away. A thriving local high street at the end of the road is the cherry on the cake.
ULEZ is great for *me*. No downsides.
They expect the pain to be born by others whilst they continue to fly first class or private jet to deliver the good news - yes, Emma Thompson, I'm looking at you.2 -
I want those 6 wickets to drop like shit through a goose.Sandpit said:Cricinfo: “Good morning thrill-seekers, and welcome back to Old Trafford for live drip-by-drip coverage of the fourth day of the fourth Test.”
0 -
A
All those cars on council estates in London are parked there by Rich People as a prank, I suppose. Go for a wander round the housing in Outer West London - the unfashionable bits.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Even among car owners, who are a minority in London, I doubt it is regressive because the cars most likely to be hit are big diesel cars, which are mostly owned by richer people. But I'd be happy to accept hard evidence to the contrary if you have it. Given the correlation between car ownership and income it is certainly not regressive for the population as a whole. And if you factor in that the poor are most likely to live in areas of high air pollution the progressivist of the policy only increases.Malmesbury said:A
They won because it was an issue. Not because it was The Issue in 37 foot tall letters of flame.Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
Car taxation in London has become extremely regressive. Regressive taxation became unfashionable in the days of the Estates General - 1780 something.
Let us come up with a pollution taxation system that is progressive as a whole.
The real problem the policy has politically is that the benefits are diffuse while the costs are highly concentrated.
The problem is not pollution reduction, which is a good thing - it is who pays.1 -
Yes, folk seem to like a bit of cheese with their politics.TimS said:
As an amber diamond tweeted last night “it’s completely cringe, we know it’s completely cringe, and we embrace it”. Davey has done a good job in this respect. Part of Swinson’s problem was she took herself and the party too seriously.kjh said:Just seen the LD post election winning stunt. It is worth electing them just to see these. In terms of awfulness there is little to compare which they seem to be embracing wholeheartedly.
0 -
Lack of historical knowledge is not something one generally takes pride in.Big_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her1 -
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/warnings-and-advice/uk-warnings#?date=2023-07-23
Met office weather warning for all tomorrow for heavy rain in Manchester (and pretty much nowhere else)0 -
I have held this view for decades and reinforced by visiting many of the countries whose objects are displayed in the British MuseumCasino_Royale said:
Your opinions usually last about two weeks so I'll treat this with a pinch of salt until the mood changes and you revise this too.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Excuse meCasino_Royale said:
No she doesn’t I'm afraid. You are just misty eyed about your progeny and because you are pretty much incapable of original thought yourself you just can't see it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translatorGallowgate said:
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us aboutBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
I have long been of the opinion the British Museum displays items brought back from countries without their permission, and only where the countries are content for us to retain them as trustees should they stay rather than be returned2 -
Another aspect of control - Satellite Geofencing (as used eg to keep drones away from airports) - is being argued for in some circles as a way of making vehicles stop drivers killing / injuring people with their cars, especially 4x4s weighing 2+ tons which can accelerate so fast as to be uncontrollable.Cyclefree said:Isn't one of the concerns over the ULEZ proposal the worry that the next step will be road pricing in the whole of London - regardless of whether your car is compliant, green or whatever. I'm sure I read recently that Khan had asked his officials to look at the practicalities of imposing this, the camera network already largely being in place. So in addition to car tax, congestion charges, high petrol prices, fuel duty and VAT, another cost. It sits ill with concerns about the cost of living when these costs are - for many - an essential part of day to day living and feed into other costs of course.
Road pricing may be what's needed instead of fuel duty. But if so that is for national government rather than for the Mayor, no?
Exhibit A is the Landrover driver who put so many people in hospital in Wimbledon with their vehicle by careering through a school picnic, and killed 2 primary school children.
Exhibit B is the school-run mum who drove her Toyota Rav 4 into a tree and a wall, and up the pavement to the school gate. injuring 11 primary school parents and children in Earlsfield last year. Her alleged reason was that her foot slipped onto the throttle in error.
Exhibit C is the systems built into vehicles that make an extreme kickdown turn off the speed limiter and make the vehicle go faster, rather than make it stop dead. In the circumstances above that is fail-dangerous, not fail-safe.
I have no idea how this will go, and I have not thought it through enough to reach an opinion. Though I don't like microcontrol from the centre, I can see a case for it here given A and B. It's one step from there to hardware control limiting vehicles to the local speed limit (which is credibly arguable both for and against).
I'm quite keen on dealing with the kick-down issue, and limiting the acceleration rate of electric vehicles - with savage penalties for anyone who hacks the system. I can't see an argument against that.1 -
The Elgin Marbles are boring bed-blockers that we should return ASAP and replace with some of our own truly spectacular material heritage. I’d start by borrowing the Vindolanda letters, possibly the most moving and vital bit of archaeology I’ve ever experienced.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Would we? I doubt it. There is no demand for French reparations for the Norman invasion and near-genocidal harrying of the north. No-one is calling for British art or the Magna Carta to be returned from American galleries. Even much of the foreign pressure for return of artefacts is exaggerated by UK wokesters from small national campaigns. Look at the Benin bronzes returned to Nigeria, which country shrugged and handed them to its king who will hide them away rather than proudly display them in a new national museum.Carnyx said:
Nobody's worrying about the small stuff in the research collections. It's the big stuff like the Elgin Marbles. You'd go bananas if the Crown of Charles II was stolen by the Indians and on display in Delhi. Or the tomb of Henry whoever he was was stolen from Westminster Abbey and in a Greek museum.HYUFD said:
Most of the big western museums would have few artefacts left if only ones from that nation were allowedkle4 said:
I'm baffled why people would agree to visit museums considered to be full of stolen goods if its an opinion which is more than a gag.ydoethur said:
The governments of India and Pakistan have entered a protest that she is wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translatorGallowgate said:
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us aboutBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
The Koh-i-Noor is in the Crown Jewels of England so not *all* Britain's stolen goods are in the British Museum.
1 -
0
-
Dry in north Wales, according to the radar. Showers fizzling out over the Irish Sea.
I could convince myself…1 -
I had a debate on here with a pirate earlier in the week. He was arguing for our rights to freely move by private car around the UK. There is no freedom to move whilst ground to a halt on the M6 just to the right of IKEA, Wednesbury.RochdalePioneers said:
People who use a 20 year old Range Rover diesel as a dog car are understandably up in arms. Though they're not the "working poor" that the right endlessly offer as the victim.Mexicanpete said:...
A £100 2002 Ford Fiesta 1.3 (petrol) is ULEZ compliant. Granted a 2014 Range Rover diesel isn't. So the argument is spurious to say the least.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
UK transport policy is absurd. It is a shame that when a politician grasps the nettle and goes out on a limb they are shot down by Sunak AND Starmer. I suppose flying everywhere by helicopter means the congestion issue isn't their problem.
Private motor vehicles as a mode of transport are at that fulcrum point of being, for practical purposes, unusable on vast swathes of the motorway network and in urban areas. It has been bad for most of my 44 years and in excess of a million miles of driving. It is worse now than ever before, and being ground to a halt at M6, Jct 10 means there is little hope of completing the next million miles.
P.S. Most of the ULEZ non compliant petrol cars will not run on E10 bio-ethanol anyway. It eats away at rubberised fuel system components. So your old banger or classic car won't work, certainly after Tesco delist their Momentum product.0 -
I think you owe me an apologyCasino_Royale said:
I like Big_G personally, he's a really nice guy, but I'm afraid I don't much respect his opinions because he's a complete weathervane.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. It is a sad indictment of the state of affairs today - not the fact that Big_G's daughter has a gap in her knowledge, but that he is proud of her for that fact.Casino_Royale said:
Lots. There's a lot in the British Museum that was acquired or purchased by the museum in good faith, or honestly donated, or recovered and restored when the alternative would have been almost certain destruction by war or insurrection.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What about her comment is untrue ?squareroot2 said:
Doesn't take much to.make you proud obviously. She has been watching far too much BBC contentBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
Your granddaughter is simply parroting the fashionable shibboleths of the times and injecting none of her own original thought into it.
Sure, she's expressing a vaguely political opinion in public, and that might show she's come of age to some degree, but it's nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid.
I can't begrudge anyone for expressing pride in their family, but that post simply underlined his inability to detach that from critical thinking or, indeed, to do any form of it whatsoever.
As I have said I have held this view for decades and having travelled worldwide visiting many of the countries involved you can understand their viewpoint0 -
Always room for optimism with the cricket. Two hours play over today and tomorrow could be enough 👍Anabobazina said:Dry in north Wales, according to the radar. Showers fizzling out over the Irish Sea.
I could convince myself…1 -
It's fashion, nothing more.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Would we? I doubt it. There is no demand for French reparations for the Norman invasion and near-genocidal harrying of the north. No-one is calling for British art or the Magna Carta to be returned from American galleries. Even much of the foreign pressure for return of artefacts is exaggerated by UK wokesters from small national campaigns. Look at the Benin bronzes returned to Nigeria, which country shrugged and handed them to its king who will hide them away rather than proudly display them in a new national museum.Carnyx said:
Nobody's worrying about the small stuff in the research collections. It's the big stuff like the Elgin Marbles. You'd go bananas if the Crown of Charles II was stolen by the Indians and on display in Delhi. Or the tomb of Henry whoever he was was stolen from Westminster Abbey and in a Greek museum.HYUFD said:
Most of the big western museums would have few artefacts left if only ones from that nation were allowedkle4 said:
I'm baffled why people would agree to visit museums considered to be full of stolen goods if its an opinion which is more than a gag.ydoethur said:
The governments of India and Pakistan have entered a protest that she is wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translatorGallowgate said:
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us aboutBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
The Koh-i-Noor is in the Crown Jewels of England so not *all* Britain's stolen goods are in the British Museum.2 -
God up there swigging a Fosters, cackling and singing Waltzing Matilda.Miklosvar said:https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/warnings-and-advice/uk-warnings#?date=2023-07-23
Met office weather warning for all tomorrow for heavy rain in Manchester (and pretty much nowhere else)0 -
Easy to forget how quiet the roads were in the 1970s until you look at old photos. Driving truly was a pleasure then.Mexicanpete said:
I had a debate on here with a pirate earlier in the week. He was arguing for our rights to freely move by private car around the UK. There is no freedom to move whilst ground to a halt on the M6 just to the right of IKEA, Wednesbury.RochdalePioneers said:
People who use a 20 year old Range Rover diesel as a dog car are understandably up in arms. Though they're not the "working poor" that the right endlessly offer as the victim.Mexicanpete said:...
A £100 2002 Ford Fiesta 1.3 (petrol) is ULEZ compliant. Granted a 2014 Range Rover diesel isn't. So the argument is spurious to say the least.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
UK transport policy is absurd. It is a shame that when a politician grasps the nettle and goes out on a limb they are shot down by Sunak AND Starmer. I suppose flying everywhere by helicopter means the congestion issue isn't their problem.
Private motor vehicles as a mode of transport are at that fulcrum point of being, for practical purposes, unusable on vast swathes of the motorway network and in urban areas. It has been bad for most of my 44 years and in excess of a million miles of driving. It is worse now than ever before, and being ground to a halt at M6, Jct 10 means there is little hope of completing the next million miles.
P.S. Most of the ULEZ non compliant petrol cars will not run on E10 bio-ethanol anyway. It eats away at rubberised fuel system components. So your old banger or classic car won't work, certainly after Tesco delist their Momentum product.0 -
Off topic: Number 2 niece came round for her tea yesterday. She's still here!
On topic: I've never thought that a Labour majority was a done deal.0 -
The dry area in north wales is between 2 bands of rain though.londonpubman said:
Always room for optimism with the cricket. Two hours play over today and tomorrow could be enough 👍Anabobazina said:Dry in north Wales, according to the radar. Showers fizzling out over the Irish Sea.
I could convince myself…0 -
You are entitled to think whatever you like but there's nothing to apologise for. I don't believe this is a view that you've held for decades either and is 'well-founded'; indeed, i think it's a profoundly ignorant one.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think you owe me an apologyCasino_Royale said:
I like Big_G personally, he's a really nice guy, but I'm afraid I don't much respect his opinions because he's a complete weathervane.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. It is a sad indictment of the state of affairs today - not the fact that Big_G's daughter has a gap in her knowledge, but that he is proud of her for that fact.Casino_Royale said:
Lots. There's a lot in the British Museum that was acquired or purchased by the museum in good faith, or honestly donated, or recovered and restored when the alternative would have been almost certain destruction by war or insurrection.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What about her comment is untrue ?squareroot2 said:
Doesn't take much to.make you proud obviously. She has been watching far too much BBC contentBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
Your granddaughter is simply parroting the fashionable shibboleths of the times and injecting none of her own original thought into it.
Sure, she's expressing a vaguely political opinion in public, and that might show she's come of age to some degree, but it's nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid.
I can't begrudge anyone for expressing pride in their family, but that post simply underlined his inability to detach that from critical thinking or, indeed, to do any form of it whatsoever.
As I have said I have held this view for decades and having travelled worldwide visiting many of the countries involved you can understand their viewpoint1 -
A few years ago, the Hermitage put on an exhibition of loads of art that the Red Army had "liberated" from Berlin in 1945. To my mind, it was entirely legitimate recompense for what the German Army had done in Russia.Casino_Royale said:
It's fashion, nothing more.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Would we? I doubt it. There is no demand for French reparations for the Norman invasion and near-genocidal harrying of the north. No-one is calling for British art or the Magna Carta to be returned from American galleries. Even much of the foreign pressure for return of artefacts is exaggerated by UK wokesters from small national campaigns. Look at the Benin bronzes returned to Nigeria, which country shrugged and handed them to its king who will hide them away rather than proudly display them in a new national museum.Carnyx said:
Nobody's worrying about the small stuff in the research collections. It's the big stuff like the Elgin Marbles. You'd go bananas if the Crown of Charles II was stolen by the Indians and on display in Delhi. Or the tomb of Henry whoever he was was stolen from Westminster Abbey and in a Greek museum.HYUFD said:
Most of the big western museums would have few artefacts left if only ones from that nation were allowedkle4 said:
I'm baffled why people would agree to visit museums considered to be full of stolen goods if its an opinion which is more than a gag.ydoethur said:
The governments of India and Pakistan have entered a protest that she is wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translatorGallowgate said:
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us aboutBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
The Koh-i-Noor is in the Crown Jewels of England so not *all* Britain's stolen goods are in the British Museum.2 -
Grandchildren with a conscience and a snappy phrase are though.Sean_F said:
Lack of historical knowledge is not something one generally takes pride in.Big_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her2 -
You can add an ethanol stabiliser but it certainly isn't cheap. I redid all the fuel lines, injector seals and fuel pumps and upgraded the ECUs on both my 993s for this reason and that wasn't cheap either.Mexicanpete said:
P.S. Most of the ULEZ non compliant petrol cars will not run on E10 bio-ethanol anyway. It eats away at rubberised fuel system components. So your old banger or classic car won't work, certainly after Tesco delist their Momentum product.0 -
https://www.theweatheroutlook.com/twoforecasts/hourly-weather-forecast.aspx?loc=Manchesterlondonpubman said:
Always room for optimism with the cricket. Two hours play over today and tomorrow could be enough 👍Anabobazina said:Dry in north Wales, according to the radar. Showers fizzling out over the Irish Sea.
I could convince myself…
has a weather window corresponding to the radar...
England 2.94 0n betfair0 -
Not here in LlandudnoAnabobazina said:Dry in north Wales, according to the radar. Showers fizzling out over the Irish Sea.
I could convince myself…0 -
New thread.0
-
NEW THREAD
0 -
Two principles:Octopus said:
Easy to forget how quiet the roads were in the 1970s until you look at old photos. Driving truly was a pleasure then.Mexicanpete said:
I had a debate on here with a pirate earlier in the week. He was arguing for our rights to freely move by private car around the UK. There is no freedom to move whilst ground to a halt on the M6 just to the right of IKEA, Wednesbury.RochdalePioneers said:
People who use a 20 year old Range Rover diesel as a dog car are understandably up in arms. Though they're not the "working poor" that the right endlessly offer as the victim.Mexicanpete said:...
A £100 2002 Ford Fiesta 1.3 (petrol) is ULEZ compliant. Granted a 2014 Range Rover diesel isn't. So the argument is spurious to say the least.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!RochdalePioneers said:
Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.SouthamObserver said:
Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?HYUFD said:
Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer LondonSouthamObserver said:
It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the wordMexicanpete said:
The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
UK transport policy is absurd. It is a shame that when a politician grasps the nettle and goes out on a limb they are shot down by Sunak AND Starmer. I suppose flying everywhere by helicopter means the congestion issue isn't their problem.
Private motor vehicles as a mode of transport are at that fulcrum point of being, for practical purposes, unusable on vast swathes of the motorway network and in urban areas. It has been bad for most of my 44 years and in excess of a million miles of driving. It is worse now than ever before, and being ground to a halt at M6, Jct 10 means there is little hope of completing the next million miles.
P.S. Most of the ULEZ non compliant petrol cars will not run on E10 bio-ethanol anyway. It eats away at rubberised fuel system components. So your old banger or classic car won't work, certainly after Tesco delist their Momentum product.
1 My driving is pleasant, useful and agreeably symbolic of freedom
2 Other people's driving causes congestion.
One consequence seen (I think) at all times in all places:
3 If you expand the capacity of a congested road, traffic increases until it becomes congested again.
Right wing thinking struggles with this sort of problem. The libertarian maxim "your freedom stops at my nose" ought to apply (literally here) but people are reluctant to accept concrete costs for what seem like nebulous gains.0 -
I have said it is a view I have held for decades and I do not lieCasino_Royale said:
You are entitled to think whatever you like but there's nothing to apologise for. I don't believe this is a view that you've held for decades either and is 'well-founded'; indeed, i think it's a profoundly ignorant one.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think you owe me an apologyCasino_Royale said:
I like Big_G personally, he's a really nice guy, but I'm afraid I don't much respect his opinions because he's a complete weathervane.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep. It is a sad indictment of the state of affairs today - not the fact that Big_G's daughter has a gap in her knowledge, but that he is proud of her for that fact.Casino_Royale said:
Lots. There's a lot in the British Museum that was acquired or purchased by the museum in good faith, or honestly donated, or recovered and restored when the alternative would have been almost certain destruction by war or insurrection.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What about her comment is untrue ?squareroot2 said:
Doesn't take much to.make you proud obviously. She has been watching far too much BBC contentBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
Your granddaughter is simply parroting the fashionable shibboleths of the times and injecting none of her own original thought into it.
Sure, she's expressing a vaguely political opinion in public, and that might show she's come of age to some degree, but it's nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid.
I can't begrudge anyone for expressing pride in their family, but that post simply underlined his inability to detach that from critical thinking or, indeed, to do any form of it whatsoever.
As I have said I have held this view for decades and having travelled worldwide visiting many of the countries involved you can understand their viewpoint
You may disagree with me but no need to insult me0 -
Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).1 -
This has been known about since it became common practice to use benzene instead of leaded fuel in the 1980s.Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't disagree with your overall message but would point out that I believe unleaded petrol as it has been formulated since the ban on lead is probably going to turn out to be one of the greatest environmental crimes of he last few decades.RochdalePioneers said:
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate.Sandpit said:
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.RochdalePioneers said:
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.Sandpit said:
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.RochdalePioneers said:
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense wayOnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
Seat Belts
Drink Drive laws
Unleaded petrol
Fuel efficiency
Vehicle security
Benzene is top of the pops carcinogenic. I worked for a US company who sold a service using recycled kerosene. The re-refining process did not remove stuff like benzene. Law suits in the US claimed not only was inhaling aerosol mist containing benzene carcinogenic but also led to potential renal failure. Benzene is very nasty stuff, and we have been pumping it all over our hands and inhaling the vapour for decades.
http://www.toxictorts.com/safety-kleen-litigation/1 -
It's the ancient legal principal of finders keepers. Or who has the biggest stick wins.Theuniondivvie said:
‘They are only resting in our account’Miklosvar said:
Naaah we paid for some of the mummies and had the Rosetta stone off the Frenchies. In any case, I like to think of our Great Nation as merely the trustee of these treasures.TheScreamingEagles said:
Still makes me laugh.rcs1000 said:
It's not *all* our stolen goods.Big_G_NorthWales said:
What about her comment is untrue ?squareroot2 said:
Doesn't take much to.make you proud obviously. She has been watching far too much BBC contentBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
0 -
The Lake District is indeed a place of remarkable beauty.Cyclefree said:Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).
Your comment about politicians is also correct.1 -
Look at how many parking spaces there are relative to the number of flats - it was far less than 1:1 in the estate I used to live in. And look at the actual data.Malmesbury said:A
All those cars on council estates in London are parked there by Rich People as a prank, I suppose. Go for a wander round the housing in Outer West London - the unfashionable bits.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Even among car owners, who are a minority in London, I doubt it is regressive because the cars most likely to be hit are big diesel cars, which are mostly owned by richer people. But I'd be happy to accept hard evidence to the contrary if you have it. Given the correlation between car ownership and income it is certainly not regressive for the population as a whole. And if you factor in that the poor are most likely to live in areas of high air pollution the progressivist of the policy only increases.Malmesbury said:A
They won because it was an issue. Not because it was The Issue in 37 foot tall letters of flame.Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
Car taxation in London has become extremely regressive. Regressive taxation became unfashionable in the days of the Estates General - 1780 something.
Let us come up with a pollution taxation system that is progressive as a whole.
The real problem the policy has politically is that the benefits are diffuse while the costs are highly concentrated.
The problem is not pollution reduction, which is a good thing - it is who pays.0 -
Fair; but the counter might be that it simply cancelled out what would have been a 4k anti Tory penalty.Sunil_Prasannan said:OK, if ULEZ was SUCH an issue in Uxbridge, how come the Tory majority was only 450, as opposed to, say, 4,500?
0 -
The logical end position of this line of argument is that every great museum in the world should be emptied of all its artefacts that aren't wholly domestic in origin and repatriated. Where far fewer people worldwide could get a general appreciation of human civilisation and culture, which would reduce education and understanding, and where many artefacts would be inappropriately cared for, managed and lost for all time.Sean_F said:
A few years ago, the Hermitage put on an exhibition of loads of art that the Red Army had "liberated" from Berlin in 1945. To my mind, it was entirely legitimate recompense for what the German Army had done in Russia.Casino_Royale said:
It's fashion, nothing more.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Would we? I doubt it. There is no demand for French reparations for the Norman invasion and near-genocidal harrying of the north. No-one is calling for British art or the Magna Carta to be returned from American galleries. Even much of the foreign pressure for return of artefacts is exaggerated by UK wokesters from small national campaigns. Look at the Benin bronzes returned to Nigeria, which country shrugged and handed them to its king who will hide them away rather than proudly display them in a new national museum.Carnyx said:
Nobody's worrying about the small stuff in the research collections. It's the big stuff like the Elgin Marbles. You'd go bananas if the Crown of Charles II was stolen by the Indians and on display in Delhi. Or the tomb of Henry whoever he was was stolen from Westminster Abbey and in a Greek museum.HYUFD said:
Most of the big western museums would have few artefacts left if only ones from that nation were allowedkle4 said:
I'm baffled why people would agree to visit museums considered to be full of stolen goods if its an opinion which is more than a gag.ydoethur said:
The governments of India and Pakistan have entered a protest that she is wrong.Big_G_NorthWales said:
She is a highly intelligent young lady who is about to start a one year position from Leeds University with a Milan Law Firm as a translatorGallowgate said:
She sounds like one of those right-wing anti-woke youngsters that Leon keeps telling us aboutBig_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
To be fair she is not political but certainly speaks to the truth re the British Museum
The Koh-i-Noor is in the Crown Jewels of England so not *all* Britain's stolen goods are in the British Museum.
I put it into the same category as the "cultural appropriation" nonsense, and it's largely about western liberals signalling their progressive values to each other at all of our expense.5 -
The trouble with the Lake District is the superficial nature of its beauty. The intensity of farming post war has tremendously diminished its value for nature. The commons are overgrazed, the inbye is nitrogen green. That to me is a problem.Sean_F said:
The Lake District is indeed a place of remarkable beauty.Cyclefree said:Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).
Your comment about politicians is also correct.0 -
His grandchild is just trying to fit in amongst her peer group, and be accepted.kinabalu said:
Grandchildren with a conscience and a snappy phrase are though.Sean_F said:
Lack of historical knowledge is not something one generally takes pride in.Big_G_NorthWales said:My daughter and granddaughter have been on a 2 day visit to London and yesterday visited the British Museum
My daughter posted a couple of dozen photos on her facebook page and my granddaughter (20) commented
'The British Museum - the place to see all our stolen goods'
I am so proud of her
It's an exercise in social proof, not a window into the soul.0 -
Didn't believe in what?Cyclefree said:Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).0 -
Rural AffairsLuckyguy1983 said:
Didn't believe in what?Cyclefree said:Anyway off topic, if anyone is interested in farming and the Lake District (and if you aren't, what the hell is wrong with you!), the book "Forty Farms" (by Amy Bateman) is for you. It tells the stories of different farms in the Lakes, their history, their sheep, cattle and other farming businesses, the valley and hills they farm, the local nature etc. And with beautiful photos, too. And it really explains how and why they survive and why that connection between land and people matters.
I know some of the families featured. But even without that connection it is genuinely interesting.
Contrast that with what Rory Stewart said Truss told him when she was made responsible for the rural affairs portfolio - that she didn't believe in it. It is that contempt that so many politicians seem to have for the land they live in and the people who live there that leads to electoral disaster. It is happening to the Tories now but it will happen to other parties too (see the Greens in Brighton).0 -
https://nitter.net/BasedMikeLee/status/1681899245912338432TheScreamingEagles said:
Current GOP thinking as per the GOP senator from Utah.MattW said:
Is he?williamglenn said:
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.kinabalu said:
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.kle4 said:
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.Octopus said:Interestingly just seen this online. Worrying.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper.
The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Has it changed, or did I miss something?
https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/status/16818992459123384320 -
https://archive.is/fmpXiTheScreamingEagles said:Talking about snivelling little shits.
Rishi Sunak aims to divide and rule after poll setback
New focus on migrants, trans rights and crime
Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights.
The prime minister insisted that the next general election was “not a done deal” after losing two by-elections. Labour’s victory in Selby & Ainsty represented the second biggest by-election swing from the Tories since 1945.
Sunak, however, took succour from holding on to Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Boris Johnson’s former seat in west London, after the Tories succeeded in turning the campaign into an effective referendum on plans by Sadiq Khan, the capital’s Labour mayor, to charge people with more polluting cars.
The prime minister privately acknowledges that after eight months of trying to restore order within Tory ranks he needs a “change in pace, emphasis and approach”. He believes that the victory in Uxbridge demonstrates that when a “substantive issue” is at stake the Tories can win.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-aims-to-divide-and-rule-after-poll-setback-rl0tqjqhw0 -
I must admit given all the evidence I am amazed it has not been more in the public eye.Mexicanpete said:
This has been known about since it became common practice to use benzene instead of leaded fuel in the 1980s.Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't disagree with your overall message but would point out that I believe unleaded petrol as it has been formulated since the ban on lead is probably going to turn out to be one of the greatest environmental crimes of he last few decades.RochdalePioneers said:
It always is. Things pushed on poor drivers against the wishes of the electorate.Sandpit said:
I’d love to see some polling about car use, electric cars, ULEZ schemes etc.RochdalePioneers said:
Is the spin line. And I do hope your lot stick to it because it will lose them an awful lot of votes.Sandpit said:
That’s what Labour have been saying loud and clear, to the residents of outer London.RochdalePioneers said:
Surely the Common Sense approach is to tax the poor off the road. That way there is more space for people who have made something of themselves.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I'm not sure what the common sense route is that still achieves the necessary reduction in air pollution. Only implement it in selected parts of outer London? That would make it harder to know if you were liable or not and create confusion. Delay its implementation? How do you persuade an asthmatic to be the last person to die so you don't inconvenience motorists? The best thing is to just get on with it. Maybe boost the scrappage scheme a bit. It is the right thing to do even if it is unpopular with some people. Polluter pays.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That is not the argument, more implementation in a common sense wayOnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe they wanted to reduce the serious illness and death associated with air pollution caused by dirty older vehicles. I know, mad right.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
What it has done is open the door ajar for the conservatives to take on the anti car lobby
I suspect that, outside the very centre of major cities, the majority opinion is that these things are being pushed against the wishes of the electorate.
Seat Belts
Drink Drive laws
Unleaded petrol
Fuel efficiency
Vehicle security
Benzene is top of the pops carcinogenic. I worked for a US company who sold a service using recycled kerosene. The re-refining process did not remove stuff like benzene. Law suits in the US claimed not only was inhaling aerosol mist containing benzene carcinogenic but also led to potential renal failure. Benzene is very nasty stuff, and we have been pumping it all over our hands and inhaling the vapour for decades.
http://www.toxictorts.com/safety-kleen-litigation/0 -
Jealous of SUV/4x4 owners, tut tut.noneoftheabove said:
Go after those 4x4s and SUVs. Also lets start having camera fines for dangerous tailgaiting seeing as the police have given up enforcing this.Malmesbury said:
And some council vehicles….Sandpit said:
An anti-pollution scheme that targeted vans rather than cars, would likely have enjoyed much wider support.MattW said:
Missed the edit deadline.MattW said:
Correct me if I'm wrong - I think business vehicles only have a short-term exemption, so that one will fix itself.rcs1000 said:
I think most of the pollution now comes from delivery vehicles, though.Stuartinromford said:
It's been a good idea inside the North/South circular. It was a good idea when Boris introduced it in the very centre of London.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.
Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.
For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.
There is a cost to society of super polluting vehicles, and it seems fair that the users of those vehicles pay it. By all means question the exact price, or the exact location- though it's not obvious where else you can draw the line.
But "polluter pays" is exactly what should be happening.
We also now have a "zero emissions / lower emissions" sector of the delivery market - either using ZEV or e-cycle microvans (which look very like the Postman Pat van). Amazon have trials running, for example.
(Corporate Vid with plinkety-plunk music): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLf7lCPSm9g
The other thing to do is to remove the exemptions on taxes, such as congestion charge, for vehicles costing more than £50k - see the stuff in the US and elsewhere. Tax breaks on super expensive ZEVs are no longer required. Time to shift the incentives to cheaper vehicles.
Use the money raised from that to subsidise a further scrapage scheme.0 -
The idea of driving around in 2 tonnes of metal is something we will move on from. It is just ruining urban areas and making them unliveable. Eventually we will move on to lightweight electric powered transport, ie scooters, bikes, golf buggies. Young people are already losing interest in cars in favour of other forms of transport.MattW said:
Another aspect of control - Satellite Geofencing (as used eg to keep drones away from airports) - is being argued for in some circles as a way of making vehicles stop drivers killing / injuring people with their cars, especially 4x4s weighing 2+ tons which can accelerate so fast as to be uncontrollable.Cyclefree said:Isn't one of the concerns over the ULEZ proposal the worry that the next step will be road pricing in the whole of London - regardless of whether your car is compliant, green or whatever. I'm sure I read recently that Khan had asked his officials to look at the practicalities of imposing this, the camera network already largely being in place. So in addition to car tax, congestion charges, high petrol prices, fuel duty and VAT, another cost. It sits ill with concerns about the cost of living when these costs are - for many - an essential part of day to day living and feed into other costs of course.
Road pricing may be what's needed instead of fuel duty. But if so that is for national government rather than for the Mayor, no?
Exhibit A is the Landrover driver who put so many people in hospital in Wimbledon with their vehicle by careering through a school picnic, and killed 2 primary school children.
Exhibit B is the school-run mum who drove her Toyota Rav 4 into a tree and a wall, and up the pavement to the school gate. injuring 11 primary school parents and children in Earlsfield last year. Her alleged reason was that her foot slipped onto the throttle in error.
Exhibit C is the systems built into vehicles that make an extreme kickdown turn off the speed limiter and make the vehicle go faster, rather than make it stop dead. In the circumstances above that is fail-dangerous, not fail-safe.
I have no idea how this will go, and I have not thought it through enough to reach an opinion. Though I don't like microcontrol from the centre, I can see a case for it here given A and B. It's one step from there to hardware control limiting vehicles to the local speed limit (which is credibly arguable both for and against).
I'm quite keen on dealing with the kick-down issue, and limiting the acceleration rate of electric vehicles - with savage penalties for anyone who hacks the system. I can't see an argument against that.1 -
Radar looking good!0
-
Build a retractable roof like they did at WimbledonAnabobazina said:Radar looking good!
0
