New Labour Leader

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

3 hours ago, Herman said:

I try to ignore your patented levels of horse**** but I feel it's necessary to ask.... what the **** you on about??

I'm on about Tory 2017 manifesto pledges, of which, only half were fulfilled -- It wasn't until a majority voted for the cons again in 2019 when they finally realised they'd better get on with implementing Brexit.

It was common knowledge then that the establishment didn't want to leave the EU and it's common knowledge now that the lib/lab/con don't want to deal with immigration.

The country needs a true Conservative Party.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[canarydan23 4,137]

So, here's a question for the Starmerists, who just this week praised his refusal to pursue populist policies.

What are you now thinking about his spineless approach to ULEZ? People are generally misguided on this, it only affects old cars, Chelsea tractors, high performance vehicles and big vans/lorries.

I regularly drive my 7-seater diesel Combo Life van in ULEZ areas; it doesn't meet the threshold. If that isn't then the vast majority of cars won't either.

But who lives in Uxbridge? And what do they drive? It's the wealthy Range Rover drivers up in arms about it, the high performance sports car owners, etc. These are the people Starmer is now proposing pandering to.

Yes, some poor people with N reg Cavaliers might get caught up in it, but frankly the sooner those cars are off the road the better.

But Starmer is so terrified of upsetting hoity toity residents of places like Uxbridge that he'll let kids in school playgrounds breath in dangerous levels of CO2.

[Herman 9,863]

To be honest I'm not sure why they haven't been shouting from the rooftops that it is a tory policy being enacted and that not that many people will be affected anyway. Very poor communicating and letting the scum get away with it again.

[Barbe bleu 837]

37 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

 

What are you now thinking about his spineless approach to ULEZ? People are generally misguided on this, it only affects old cars, Chelsea tractors, high performance vehicles and big vans/lorries.

I regularly drive my 7-seater diesel Combo Life van in ULEZ areas; it doesn't meet the threshold. If that isn't then the vast majority of cars won't either.

But who lives in Uxbridge? And what do they drive? It's the wealthy Range Rover drivers up in arms about it, the high performance sports car owners, etc. These are the people Starmer is now proposing pandering to.

Yes, some poor people with N reg Cavaliers might get caught up in it, but frankly the sooner those cars are off the road the better.

But Starmer is so terrified of upsetting hoity toity residents of places like Uxbridge that he'll let kids in school playgrounds breath in dangerous levels of CO2.

I suspet you need to read up a bit more on the ULEZ expansion before posting in anger.

All petrol cars made after 2005 will be compliant, as will all diesels made after 2015.  Wealthy Range Rover owners in Uxbridge or elsewhere will not be paying to drive and nor will those with ferraris, lambos or bentleys. but those who can only afford an older car will. 

What's a dangerous level of co2 to breathe in?  It's a greenhouse gas but you'll be fine breathing it in, better off breathing it out though i guess. Anyway, Ulez doesn't seek to limit co2 emissions, in fact it might create more as it encourages people out of dielsels (with lower co2) and into petrol (with higher co2)

Edited July 22, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

To be honest I'm not sure why they haven't been shouting from the rooftops that it is a tory policy being enacted and that not that many people will be affected anyway. Very poor communicating and letting the scum get away with it again.

Boris's ULEZ proposal covered 8 square miles -- It was Khan who introduced ULEZ in 2019 and his proposal covers 600 square miles... So by your reckoning Khan is even scummier than Boris. Which he is.

Polls show that the majority of Londoners are in favour and Councils across Britain have been told to curb their air pollution levels and to do so, they should rid their roads of the dirtiest vehicles. I'm not an eco-loon and nor do I believe in man-made climate change, but I agree with this because I like the idea of cleaner air. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

54 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I suspet you need to read up a bit more on the ULEZ expansion before posting in anger.

All petrol cars made after 2005 will be compliant, as will all diesels made after 2015.  Wealthy Range Rover owners in Uxbridge or elsewhere will not be paying to drive and nor will those with ferraris, lambos or bentleys. but those who can only afford an older car will. 

What's a dangerous level of co2 to breathe in?  It's a greenhouse gas but you'll be fine breathing it in, better off breathing it out though i guess. Anyway, Ulez doesn't seek to limit co2 emissions, in fact it might create more as it encourages people out of dielsels (with lower co2) and into petrol (with higher co2)

Yes. I suspect CD has Uxbridge confused with Mayfair.

And this isnt targeting CO2 at all as you state. NOX and PM2.5

It's a cross.over area. Most may know it from Brunel University.

[canarydan23 4,137]

Oh, just NOX then, nothing to worry about, drink it all in kids.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

26 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Oh, just NOX then, nothing to worry about, drink it all in kids.

It's salami slicing tactics. Bring in unpopular measures just to the point where people accept it with a bit of grumbling and then wait for the complaints die down, then bring in further restrictive measures later. Rinse and repeat. It won't stop until only a wealthy minority can afford a car. Poor people will be confined to their neighbourhood.

[canarydan23 4,137]

36 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

It's salami slicing tactics. Bring in unpopular measures just to the point where people accept it with a bit of grumbling and then wait for the complaints die down, then bring in further restrictive measures later. Rinse and repeat. It won't stop until only a wealthy minority can afford a car. Poor people will be confined to their neighbourhood.

Tin-foil hat nonsense.

I'll be honest, I knew very little about ULEZ (evidently), other than the fact that my turbo diesel van could drive around in them for free.

But getting rid of old polluting cars off the road is eminently sensible, but my preference is for it to be done with a carrot AND a stick approach. People on lower incomes should be able to receive a financial subsidy for trading in their polluting vehicle that enables them to purchase/place a deposit/fund alternative transport. If they choose not to, then they can pay for damage their car is doing to the most polluted areas.

The idea that this is some illuminati scheme to restrict people's mobility is right up there with the we didn't land on the moon theory, you utter womble.

[Barbe bleu 837]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Tin-foil hat nonsense.

I'll be honest, I knew very little about ULEZ (evidently), other than the fact that my turbo diesel van could drive around in them for free.

But getting rid of old polluting cars off the road is eminently sensible, but my preference is for it to be done with a carrot AND a stick approach. People on lower incomes should be able to receive a financial subsidy for trading in their polluting vehicle that enables them to purchase/place a deposit/fund alternative transport. If they choose not to, then they can pay for damage their car is doing to the most polluted areas.

The idea that this is some illuminati scheme to restrict people's mobility is right up there with the we didn't land on the moon theory, you utter womble.

There's no plot against poor people, that really is tin foil hat stuff (and let's be honest rtb knows he is just stirring the pot when he says it) but I do feel that there is a disregard for them.  

The scheme will reduce nox levels by about 6% compared to not introducing in year one (jacobs study). Good but not great. In subsequent years the difference is less as the cars in scope would have been replaced naturally anyway (they haven't been manufactured for years). Its a tiny gain for the level of impact on the poorest in society. 

And it's certainly not a tribal thing. As has widely been said Khan is just seeing through a boris policy.l tomits natural end.

If you want tin foil adjacent its worth considering why Khan is so keen. Is it only because it improves air quality, or is the massive projected revenue and the fact that he really has added nothing to his cv in two terms got more to do with it?

 

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

The ULEZ debate led me to read a 60 page report on the subject. I can't work out how to post a link but it's entitled 'Air Quality in Hillingdon - a guide for health professionals'. 

The pollution in Uxbridge appears to be 

40% motor vehicles 

40% burning fossil fuels

20% commercial cooking

Having read the report I don't understand why no action has been taken against owners of woodburners. Are they really necessary in Uxbridge? Or are they just absolutely divine darling? 

I listened to the Labour candidate yesterday on LBC. Labour did a huge doorstep review 6 weeks ago and ULEZ was barely mentioned. The chief concerns were cost of living and crime. 

In the last 4 weeks the Tories delivered 17 leaflets to every property in the constituency which only referred to ULEZ. That's an extraordinary amount of time and money but it worked. 

What bothers me is the total failure of Labour to deal with it. I would have been tempted to accuse the Tories of attempted murder and drawn attention to the health risks and costs. 

Despite supporting Starmer in general I think Labour got it wrong. Every now and again you have to be unapologetic and tell people what is good for them. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

When the authorities try and change things it is usually in a state of panic and the answer doesn't lie in one size fits all. With the general support for change to our attitude to how we treat the planet, some think they may have enough popularity to propose changes that do not take into account circumstances not thought of by the boffins. Why would a scientist consider certain things? He has been asked to explain something and give an answer. But in most cases its the working out that is the problem.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 23/07/2023 at 06:06, dylanisabaddog said:

The ULEZ debate led me to read a 60 page report on the subject. I can't work out how to post a link but it's entitled 'Air Quality in Hillingdon - a guide for health professionals'. 

The pollution in Uxbridge appears to be 

40% motor vehicles 

40% burning fossil fuels

20% commercial cooking

Having read the report I don't understand why no action has been taken against owners of woodburners. Are they really necessary in Uxbridge? Or are they just absolutely divine darling? 

I listened to the Labour candidate yesterday on LBC. Labour did a huge doorstep review 6 weeks ago and ULEZ was barely mentioned. The chief concerns were cost of living and crime. 

In the last 4 weeks the Tories delivered 17 leaflets to every property in the constituency which only referred to ULEZ. That's an extraordinary amount of time and money but it worked. 

What bothers me is the total failure of Labour to deal with it. I would have been tempted to accuse the Tories of attempted murder and drawn attention to the health risks and costs. 

Despite supporting Starmer in general I think Labour got it wrong. Every now and again you have to be unapologetic and tell people what is good for them. 

Starmer is going to ban cooking. Not only will he get an immediate 20% savings on pollution but when the poor starve to death he reaps a bonus win. Dead men don't drive vehicles either.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 23/07/2023 at 10:33, keelansgrandad said:

When the authorities try and change things it is usually in a state of panic and the answer doesn't lie in one size fits all. With the general support for change to our attitude to how we treat the planet, some think they may have enough popularity to propose changes that do not take into account circumstances not thought of by the boffins. Why would a scientist consider certain things? He has been asked to explain something and give an answer. But in most cases its the working out that is the problem.

You can hire an expert to give you any outcome you want to hear. And if they don't, just hire another one who will.

[KiwiScot 1,491]

It's on! Recall petition result is in and sitting MP Margaret Ferrier is removed from her seat of Rutherglen and Hamilton West. By-election of Labour vs the SNP likely due in October. Likely SNP win, but not suprising if Labour sneak it.

Edited August 1, 2023 by KiwiScot

[canarydan23 4,137]

On 24/07/2023 at 20:59, Rock The Boat said:

Starmer is going to ban cooking. Not only will he get an immediate 20% savings on pollution but when the poor starve to death he reaps a bonus win. Dead men don't drive vehicles either.

Exhibit #4,587,650 proving that right-wingers really don't get comedy.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Exhibit #4,587,650 proving that right-wingers really don't get comedy.

As a right-winger I will confess that I seldom if ever see humour in any of your content here at the Pink'Un, but I really don't think that has anything to do with my being a right-winger...

You're probably a barrel of laughs in person.

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

On 22/07/2023 at 19:28, Barbe bleu said:

I suspet you need to read up a bit more on the ULEZ expansion before posting in anger.

All petrol cars made after 2005 will be compliant, as will all diesels made after 2015.  Wealthy Range Rover owners in Uxbridge or elsewhere will not be paying to drive and nor will those with ferraris, lambos or bentleys. but those who can only afford an older car will. 

What's a dangerous level of co2 to breathe in?  It's a greenhouse gas but you'll be fine breathing it in, better off breathing it out though i guess. Anyway, Ulez doesn't seek to limit co2 emissions, in fact it might create more as it encourages people out of dielsels (with lower co2) and into petrol (with higher co2)

Not ALL petrol after 2005 or diesel after 2015 are compliant but most are. The number of vehicles caught by ULEZ in Uxbridge was small and the vast majority were, as @canarydan23has said, huge vehicles that are totally unnecessary. Saying it's only poor people that are affected is simply wrong, it's mainly people who can afford huge cars. There are very few petrol cars pre 2005 on the roads now, cars just don't last that long. The simple fact is that poor people living in that area probably can't afford to own a car of any sort.

The scandal here is that the Conservative Party put out leaflets saying

Did you know the ULEZ charge is £4,900 a year

Did you know a ULEZ compliant electric car costs £30k.

Neither of those statements is untrue but people were conned into believing that they needed an electric car to avoid the charge. In truth there are cars out there costing £1000 that are compliant. 

The other scandal is that Starmer didn't stand up and support the Mayor and explain the truth of the matter. 

Sorry, I don't understand your comments about co2. That's not what ULEZ is designed for. It's aimed at other polluting emissions that cause significant health effects. If you live in that part of the world you are 30% more likely to die prematurely from heart attack or stroke than you are in Norfolk. The cost to the NHS in treating people affected is enormous. And as Dan has said, the ones that suffer the most are children. Just so people can drive round in a £60k Range Rover. In London FFS. 

Both parties have failed when it comes to people burning coal and wood for heat. 40% of the problematic pollutants come from that source but that's not people who don't have a gas supply. It's affluent people who think that woodburners are absolutely divine darling. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[Barbe bleu 837]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Not ALL petrol after 2005 or diesel after 2015 are compliant but most are. The number of vehicles caught by ULEZ in Uxbridge was small 

Well no one really knows that number. TFL said that 90% of cars on their trunks roads were compliant estimates based on ownership give a massively different figure.  90% is likely to be a massive over estimation as cars their are disproportionately commuter and trade vehicles, no one in outer London uses a trunk road to go to sainsbury or the doctor .  Even at 10% that's a lot of people caught out.

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

  Saying it's only poor people that are affected is simply wrong, it's mainly people who can afford huge cars. 

 

Size of car has nothing to do with whether its engine is Euro 5 or euro 6 compliant. Lots of small, relatively low emission, bit older, cars are caught out but you'll still see plenty of Bentley's and lambos on the roads. Unless you can provide proof of this I'm going to regard it as nonsense and invite everyone else to do the same.  Most people thst can afford new cars gave probably bought one,  it's those less able to do so that are caught out. 

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

In truth there are cars out there costing £1000 that are compliant. 

 

There won't be many, if any. Not that anyone would want to drive. Happy to be proven wrong.

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

Sorry, I don't understand your comments about co2. 

You brought it up.  I was simply correcting your statement to say that ULEZ did not attack CO2 and might actually increase it

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If you live in that part of the world you are 30% more likely to die prematurely from heart attack or stroke than you are in Norfolk. The cost to the NHS in treating people affected is enormous.

And you are more than 30% more likely to have lived through the great smog in the 50s and absolutely appalling levels of lead and all kinds of sh*t in the years before euro 5 cars came in.  I actually appreciate the aim of ULEZ but look at rhe imperial college and other studies tonseenhow much difference the first two versions made and how much the second expansion is expected to.amke to health, very little. Even when its affect is expected to be at its peak.

[Barbe bleu 837]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

Both parties have failed when it comes to people burning coal and wood for heat. 40% of the problematic pollutants come from that source but that's not people who don't have a gas supply. 

Exactly!  There are lots of sources of air pollution in outer London. Going after other sources will make more of a difference than ULEZ and have less ill effect,  so go after them first. But they won't give Khan the 'big project' that he craves but has not delivered on or the revenue that ULEZ will bring in

 

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Just so people can drive round in a £60k Range Rover. In London FFS. 

I'll say this again for emphasis: A person with a massive £60k Range Rover bought in the last ten years can still drive it around as much as they like, chucking out as much Co2 and pollutants as they feel is necessary without paying a penny. A person that cannot afford to trade in their, actually quite clean and efficient, euro 5 1.0 fiesta must pay £12.50 just to go to the local shops if they aren't near enough to a bus route that goes to the right place (remember this is not city centre London, or inner city London, this is outer london where suburbs can meet green belt- public transport is good, but its not nearly  perfect).

This is a tax that will disproportionately affect the poor, maybe not the totally impoverished, but by any fair definition, poor or very poor. There won't be a more regressive tax anywhere in Britain than this.

And all to set a standard that you yourself accept will have been met by natural decline in older vehicles quite soon

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Exactly!  There are lots of sources of air pollution in outer London. Going after other sources will make more of a difference than ULEZ and have less ill effect,  so go after them first. But they won't give Khan the 'big project' that he craves but has not delivered on or the revenue that ULEZ will bring in

 

I'll say this again for emphasis: A person with a massive £60k Range Rover bought in the last ten years can still drive it around as much as they like, chucking out as much Co2 and pollutants as they feel is necessary without paying a penny. A person that cannot afford to trade in their, actually quite clean and efficient, euro 5 1.0 fiesta must pay £12.50 just to go to the local shops if they aren't near enough to a bus route that goes to the right place (remember this is not city centre London, or inner city London, this is outer london where suburbs can meet green belt- public transport is good, but its not nearly  perfect).

This is a tax that will disproportionately affect the poor, maybe not the totally impoverished, but by any fair definition, poor or very poor. There won't be a more regressive tax anywhere in Britain than this.

And all to set a standard that you yourself accept will have been met by natural decline in older vehicles quite soon

 

 

Quite BB.

I feel this is at best a pyrrhic victory for the ULEZ. The political back lash now apparent has already enabled Sunak for instance to green light much more oil and gas exploration than would of otherwise been the case. I suspect it will also stop or push back other such schemes in areas that probably need them much more than semi-rural outer London. To me the outer London ULEZ is best described as give an inch an they'll take several miles!

Obviously a pragmatic solution would be to delay the outer London ULEZ by 2 or 3  years. At least it would give those effected more than 9 months as at present to react and the problem is in any event a diminishing one anyway.

What are the chances now of a SKS government and a Tory mayor of London ?

[king canary 7,705]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Quite BB.

I feel this is at best a pyrrhic victory for the ULEZ. The political back lash now apparent has already enabled Sunak for instance to green light much more oil and gas exploration than would of otherwise been the case. I suspect it will also stop or push back other such schemes in areas that probably need them much more than semi-rural outer London. To me the outer London ULEZ is best described as give an inch an they'll take several miles!

Obviously a pragmatic solution would be to delay the outer London ULEZ by 2 or 3  years. At least it would give those effected more than 9 months as at present to react and the problem is in any event a diminishing one anyway.

What are the chances now of a SKS government and a Tory mayor of London ?

Very low considering the candidate the Tories are putting forward for London Mayor.

Edited August 2, 2023 by king canary

[Barbe bleu 837]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Quite BB.

I feel this is at best a pyrrhic victory for the ULEZ. The political back lash now apparent has already enabled Sunak for instance to green light much more oil and gas exploration than would of otherwise been the case. I suspect it will also stop or push back other such schemes in areas that probably need them much more than semi-rural outer London. To me the outer London ULEZ is best described as give an inch an they'll take several miles!

Obviously a pragmatic solution would be to delay the outer London ULEZ by 2 or 3  years. At least it would give those effected more than 9 months as at present to react and the problem is in any event a diminishing one anyway.

What are the chances now of a SKS government and a Tory mayor of London ?

Agree on all of that. If he had just announced the policy and given a few years notice he would have been absolutely fine.  As it is he has probably set back the cause several years, there were no great objections to the other emissions zone schemes but there will be to the next ones.

But is it really just about air quality or is this driven also by revenue or kahns egotistical need to deliver something, anything?

London is a really tough place for Conservatives to win in and they have largely given up trying to do so but this will help their chances for sure.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,863]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/hilarious-community-note-slapped-on-grant-shapps-ulez-tweet-353682/

The energy secretary tried to decry Khan's extension of the low emission zone before being reminded that he made it a condition of securing emergency funding in 2020.

[Barbe bleu 837]

13 minutes ago, Herman said:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/hilarious-community-note-slapped-on-grant-shapps-ulez-tweet-353682/

The energy secretary tried to decry Khan's extension of the low emission zone before being reminded that he made it a condition of securing emergency funding in 2020.

We've been through this before.  The letter in 2020 urges the ULEZ to be expanded.  It was duly expanded in October 2021, (https://ulez.co.uk/ulez-expansion-october-2021/) to less complaint, not least becauss within the North  and South circular roads public transport is very good 

What is now being discussed is a second enlargement.  What makes you think a letter in 2020 demanded the current, 2023, enlargement?

More importantly, conservative support doesn't automatically make a bad policy a good policy, surely we can agree on that?

Edited August 2, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,863]

Because, as this article from 2017 shows, it was already in the pipeline.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2017/11/03/london-mayor-confirms-ultra-low-emission-zone-will-start-in-2019

[Barbe bleu 837]

15 minutes ago, Herman said:

Because, as this article from 2017 shows, it was already in the pipeline.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2017/11/03/london-mayor-confirms-ultra-low-emission-zone-will-start-in-2019

Yes. It started in 2019 in the centre. It got expanded in 2021. This is the second expansion we are talking about.

The letter from 2020 requests the  expansion made in 2021. It makes no comment on  the 2023 expansion, because it was not then proposed.

The problem with  lot of the citizen journalism of the type you have quoted is that it is b*****ks. I'm happy to be corrected on this but there might be a reason why the Guardian hasn't picked up on the story.

The article you have quoted actually evidences what I am saying. It refers to a proposed expansion up to the North and South circular roads (ie quite far from the edge of london). it does not mention plans to expand to the edge of greater London (as is now proposed):

'The ULEZ and T-Charge are just some of the ambitious hard-hitting measures the Mayor is introducing to improve London’s toxic air quality – he is developing proposals for a London-wide Euro 6 standard for buses, coaches and lorries in 2020 and expanding the area of the ULEZ for all vehicles (including, cars, vans and motorcycles) up to the North/South Circular roads in 2021. A consultation will start later this year."

 

[Herman 9,863]

That's precisely why I put up that link.

[Barbe bleu 837]

14 minutes ago, Herman said:

That's precisely why I put up that link.

To demonstrate that this is a Sadiq Khan policy that no one demanded of him and that not even his own leader supports? If so, then fair enough, you've done that

Edited August 2, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,863]

No you idiot;

"....urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these charges..." Grant Shapps.

(And btw, your boy Bozo introduced them in the first place.)