Saddo Khan’t Costs Starmer Uxbridge

[Nick]

We live in the current Ulez zone. Mrs P only has to register to drive through the congestion charge zone. It works out at 19.23 p a week.

Any vehicle that produces zero tailpipe emissions, such as an electric car will be automatically exempt from the ULEZ charge. This tends to be any vehicle that was registered after the Euro 6 standard was implemented in September 2015. Most Hybrids are also a contender for meeting the ULEZ standards.

https://ulez.co.uk/can-i-check-if-i-have-driven-in-the-ulez-zone/#:~:text=Any%20vehicle%20that%20produces%20zero%20tailpipe%20emissions%2C%20such,also%20a%20contender%20for%20meeting%20the%20ULEZ%20standards.

I think his days are numbered anyway, and the leading contender as mayor has said they will be scrapped on day one anyway.

[patman post]

And the economic cost to families who are already struggling due to emerging from Covid and Putin's war is less harmful than modern cars what pump out very little harmful crap?

I have an all electric car but to enter the ULEZ with no charge I have to register, they could check with DVLA but no, they want to cream a bit more.

We live in the current Ulez zone. Mrs P only has to register to drive through the congestion charge zone. It works out at 19.23 p a week. 

Any vehicle that produces zero tailpipe emissions, such as an electric car will be automatically exempt from the ULEZ charge. This tends to be any vehicle that was registered after the Euro 6 standard was implemented in September 2015. Most Hybrids are also a contender for meeting the ULEZ standards.

https://ulez.co.uk/can-i-check-if-i-have-driven-in-the-ulez-zone/#:~:text=Any%20vehicle%20that%20produces%20zero%20tailpipe%20emissions%2C%20such,also%20a%20contender%20for%20meeting%20the%20ULEZ%20standards.

[johnofgwent]

And the economic cost to families who are already struggling due to emerging from Covid and Putin's war is less harmful than modern cars what pump out very little harmful crap?

I have an all electric car but to enter the ULEZ with no charge I have to register, they could check with DVLA but no, they want to cream a bit more.

I didn't know that. 

My car is immune from Greta's cultists because the DVLA says it is. That's how Bristol and Bath to name but two clean air zines get told to F@@@ off when i drive through them.

i've made a point of telling the companies inside those zones that i used to spend money with that i'm going elsewhere in future and they should enjoy going bust soon. The places i spend money with instead seem happy enough to take it .....

[johnofgwent]

And the acceptability of tgemscheme is blind up on the scrappage scheme.

By hamstringing that you create the very problem you the round on SK.for.

If the treasury was just "we're not finding the scrappage because we don't think it is value for money" then fine. But anyone shouting that the scheme is going to hurt poor people should point thier fire at the organisation that is witholding funding.

Are you saying that cutting the number of polluting vehicles entering London is a bad idea?

Assuming your position isn't "air pollution.is good for you!" Or "I don't give F@@@"

What is your solution to cutting the air pollution in London? Can you come up with one that doesn't involve cutting the number of the most polluting vehicles from entering London? Maybe a giant fan to suck the pollution away? Oh I know! Face masks for all!!

If you cannot come up with a way to reduce pollution without reducing those cars journeys, what do you do about people who currently rely on journeys made in those vehicles?

We all know what 'scrappage schemes' really mean. Massive hikes in used car prices and foreign car makers laughing all the way to THEIR banks.

[Nick]

And the acceptability of tgemscheme is blind up on the scrappage scheme.

By hamstringing that you create the very problem you the round on SK.for.

If the treasury was just "we're not finding the scrappage because we don't think it is value for money" then fine. But anyone shouting that the scheme is going to hurt poor people should point thier fire at the organisation that is witholding funding.

Are you saying that cutting the number of polluting vehicles entering London is a bad idea?

Assuming your position isn't "air pollution.is good for you!" Or "I don't give F@@@"

What is your solution to cutting the air pollution in London? Can you come up with one that doesn't involve cutting the number of the most polluting vehicles from entering London? Maybe a giant fan to suck the pollution away? Oh I know! Face masks for all!!

If you cannot come up with a way to reduce pollution without reducing those cars journeys, what do you do about people who currently rely on journeys made in those vehicles?

And the economic cost to families who are already struggling due to emerging from Covid and Putin's war is less harmful than modern cars what pump out very little harmful crap? 

I have an all electric car but to enter the ULEZ with no charge I have to register, they could check with DVLA but no, they want to cream a bit more. 

[BeElBeeBub]

But it's the current schemes that are attracting vote-altering criticism. Holding your head in your hands and wailing that it's all the fault of others is unlikely to get you anywhere.

It's up to those who want to implement these schemes to make them acceptable...

And the acceptability of tgemscheme is blind up on the scrappage scheme. 

By hamstringing that you create the very problem you the round on SK.for.

If the treasury was just "we're not finding the scrappage because we don't think it is value for money" then fine. But anyone shouting that the scheme is going to hurt poor people should point thier fire at the organisation that is witholding funding.

Are you saying that cutting the number of polluting vehicles entering London is a bad idea?

Assuming your position isn't "air pollution.is good for you!" Or "I don't give F@@@"

What is your solution to cutting the air pollution in London? Can you come up with one that doesn't involve cutting the number of the most polluting vehicles from entering London? Maybe a giant fan to suck the pollution away? Oh I know! Face masks for all!!

If you cannot come up with a way to reduce pollution without reducing those cars journeys, what do you do about people who currently rely on journeys made in those vehicles?

[patman post]

The original ULEZ was proposed by Boris Johnson as a subset of the already existing Low Emission Zone that had covered greater london since 2008.

I doubt any scheme, noatter how well.planned and explained would escape criticism from people who have been whipped up into a frenzy by a government desperate for any stick to beat the opposition with

I fully expect the Tories to go all in on attacking any and all green measures or traffic reduction schemes simply because it's about the only thing they think will.work.

Theyay have effed up themeconomy, cost us billions.om borrowing, overseen our rivers turn to shit, funneled billions.to backers, given life peerages away like Halloween sweets and ignirednthier own pandemic restrictions...... But they are agains that bike in the town center so let's vote for them!


They think voters are thick.


What s depressing is they're probably right.

Although he cleverly delayed the implementation until 2020.

But it's the current schemes that are attracting vote-altering criticism. Holding your head in your hands and wailing that it's all the fault of others is unlikely to get you anywhere.

It's up to those who want to implement these schemes to make them acceptable...

[BeElBeeBub]

Calling for taxpayers' money to fund a politically-motivated scheme is a typical socialist policy.

A brighter anti traffic pollution activist mayor would have devised an overall scheme and timings that took account of local traffic and parking plans of all London boroughs and the needs of business and welfare. Given enough time and effort, a well presented and explained, a comprehensive low pollution scheme could win majority support..

The original ULEZ was proposed by Boris Johnson as a subset of the already existing Low Emission Zone that had covered greater london since 2008.

I doubt any scheme, noatter how well.planned and explained would escape criticism from people who have been whipped up into a frenzy by a government desperate for any stick to beat the opposition with 

I fully expect the Tories to go all in on attacking any and all green measures or traffic reduction schemes simply because it's about the only thing they think will.work.

Theyay have effed up themeconomy, cost us billions.om borrowing, overseen our rivers turn to shit, funneled billions.to backers, given life peerages away like Halloween sweets and ignirednthier own pandemic restrictions...... But they are agains that bike in the town center so let's vote for them!


They think voters are thick.


What s depressing is they're probably right.

Although he cleverly delayed the implementation until 2020.

[patman post]

Many opponents to the ULEZ are clutching their pearls and crying "won't somebody think of the poor people who can't afford new cars!"

Bear in mind SK has asked the treasury for additional funding to expand the scrappage scheme beyond London (for all those poor businesses and people who have to drive into London that the pearl cluchers are suddenly so concerned about) but that has (so far been turned down.

Calling for taxpayers' money to fund a politically-motivated scheme is a typical socialist policy.

A brighter anti traffic pollution activist mayor would have devised an overall scheme and timings that took account of local traffic and parking plans of all London boroughs and the needs of business and welfare. Given enough time and effort, a well presented and explained, a comprehensive low pollution scheme could win majority support...

[patman post]

All sorts of equations can be drawn up from the figures presented, but I think most of us here said at one time or another that Ulez would be a stumbling block for Labour.

Now that Starmer recognises it, will Khan be forced to back down...?


[highlight]

Ah, well there is the ethnic in the woodpile as they say.

Being Mayor of London is pretty much a nothing job, with responsibility not extending much beyond transport and the police. The former pretty much runs itself and as long as the latter maintain a decent level of well meaning incompetence, no one is that bothered. Overall the mayor of London is just an overpaid bus driver. All the other mayors knew that, So Ken concentrated on flying the Palestinian flag over County Hall and Boris the Olympic Games and everyone was happy. Then Saddo turned up and his shtick is about being bloody miserable and imposing congestion charges and being a generally dreary little sod. Which must please Starmer because Khan only took the mayor's job while he waited for the labour party leaders job to become vacant and the more Mayor Glum screws up, the happier Sir Stodge will be
[/highlight]

Mayor of London is fairly high profile around the UK. One out of three became PM and led his party to an overwhelming victory in a general election. This may well have led others to believe that being a well-known mayor of a major city is a stepping stone to bigger things in politics. So far, only two (Burnham and Johnson) have displayed enough appealing personality to make that a possibility.

My suspicion is that Khan's future association with the Labour is going to be fraught now his Ulez ideas are being cited by both Conservative and Labour as decisive in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election outcome. That result might also modify how the Tories now present their net zero policies...

[Borchester]

Many opponents to the ULEZ are clutching their pearls and crying "won't somebody think of the poor people who can't afford new cars!"

Bear in mind SK has asked the treasury for additional funding to expand the scrappage scheme beyond London (for all those poor businesses and people who have to drive into London that the pearl cluchers are suddenly so concerned about) but that has (so far been turned down.

And as a result of being unable to restrain their contempt for those who don't dream of bread and vegan dripping sandwiches by way of Christmas dinner, is why the Brothers and Sisters lost Uxbridge

[Borchester]

All sorts of equations can be drawn up from the figures presented, but I think most of us here said at one time or another that Ulez would be a stumbling block for Labour.

Now that Starmer recognises it, will Khan be forced to back down...?


[highlight]

Ah, well there is the ethnic in the woodpile as they say.

Being Mayor of London is pretty much a nothing job, with responsibility not extending much beyond transport and the police. The former pretty much runs itself and as long as the latter maintain a decent level of well meaning incompetence, no one is that bothered. Overall the mayor of London is just an overpaid bus driver. All the other mayors knew that, So Ken concentrated on flying the Palestinian flag over County Hall and Boris the Olympic Games and everyone was happy. Then Saddo turned up and his shtick is about being bloody miserable and imposing congestion charges and being a generally dreary little sod. Which must please Starmer because Khan only took the mayor's job while he waited for the labour party leaders job to become vacant and the more Mayor Glum screws up, the happier Sir Stodge will be
[/highlight]

[BeElBeeBub]

Many opponents to the ULEZ are clutching their pearls and crying "won't somebody think of the poor people who can't afford new cars!"

Bear in mind SK has asked the treasury for additional funding to expand the scrappage scheme beyond London (for all those poor businesses and people who have to drive into London that the pearl cluchers are suddenly so concerned about) but that has (so far been turned down.

[BeElBeeBub]

As a side note:

What's wirhtbge thread title?

When did we start imitating Trump's childish habit of using playground nicknames for public figures?

"Saddo Kahn't"?! What are you? 9?

I guarantee you  SK has heard that plenty of times as kid (along with worse).

Before anyone shouts "snowflake" or bollocks like that, it's not about being offended, it's about being puzzled why a grown man would be behaving like a child. What does it achieve? Is SK.goijg to think "oh no! People are calling me unimaginative names, I'll cry and cancel my plans for London traffic"

[srb7677]

Even the Labour candidate admits the Uxbridge result - a Tory Hold and not the Labour landslide Fishy Rishi SHOULD have delivered - was thanks to Saddo and his ULEZ rollout

The BBC of course trumpet it as a two out of three trouncing for Fishy, whereas in reality the party that really should have romped home three nil succeeded in only one of three, losing quite magnificently to the rejoiners in one, and failing to topple the Boris fans in the other.

God help Starmer i say.

The Lib Dem success in Somerset, in conjunction with the massive swing to Labour in Selby, far from being a source of worry for Labour is a definite positive. Because what it shows in play big time is anti-Tory tactical voting, and if this pattern is repeated in a general election Labour would be likely to do well in every seat where they are the main challengers to the Tories whereas the Lib Dems will tend to do well and defeat Tories with the help of Labour supporting voters in seats Labour cannot win anyway.

So to portray the Lib Dem win as boding ill for Labour is to misunderstand what lay behind it. The sort of tactical voting in play will be exactly what Labour wants and will tend to maximise success for both parties if repeated in a general election.

The real fly in the ointment here is of course the Uxbridge failure. There was still a substantial swing to Labour but nothing like that in Selby and the Tory vote held up better. Labour thus failed to take the seat even though the swing needed to do so here was much less than in the other two. The obvious answer to why this is must surely be ULEZ extension. 

I was listening to a presenter on LBC yesterday who was obviously in favour of ULEZ trying to argue that ULEZ alone could not explain Labour's failure here and that there had to be other reasons. But none were forthcoming, nor was any other factor in which Uxbridge differed from the other two forthcoming. Various polls and stats were bandied about, including the alleged fact that two thirds of Londoners support ULEZ extension and even half of those in outer London do. I have not seen these stats myself so I have no idea how accurate they are. There was also the stat given that 9 out of every 10 vehicle owners in Uxbridge are ULEZ exempt anyway.

But even if that latter fact is true, Uxbridge is a relatively affluent area full of people who can afford the more expensive electric cars as well as access to their own garages and driveways for reliable personal charging points. The one in ten who cannot are likely to be the poorer ones who are struggling already, the very ones who would be priced off the road and for whom ULEZ exempt vehicles, even if they could afford one, are not a viable option because they live in a block of flats with no garage or some such situation. These are under normal circumstances just the type of people whose votes Labour might hope to win. Were I a driver in Uxbridge I might have felt a greater need to protest vote against Labour than the Tories. It could have been for the first time in my life, a scenario that drove me to vote Tory.

Labour is now so under the thrall of affluent middle class liberals that it appears to have lost the ability to see things from the perspective of economically disadvantaged and struggling working class people. Because to us this ever intensifying drive towards what is for many of us unviable electric vehicles, with ever more schemes to penalise those driving older and cheaper combustion engine models, looks like a Labour attempt to price the poor off the roads. Penalising poor people financially is never going to be a vote winner for Labour. But a party that once thought we were the salt of the earth and now thinks we are the scum of the earth apparently doesn't care.

An attitude problem on their part that makes me even more determined never to vote Labour.