| ULEZ.... 08:12 - Jul 21 with 7631 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Considering that 90% of Londoners will be better off.... that's one strange result!
"Yet 90% of people within the ULEZ don't have to pay anything and get the benefit of less air pollution.
So clearly the average bod within the ULEZ is benefitting given they don't pay." |  |
| |  |
| ULEZ.... on 08:17 - Jul 21 with 4629 views | Darth_Koont |
If Labour can be derailed by ULEZ or any other single issue then what does that say about their “offering”? |  |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 08:36 - Jul 21 with 4579 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| ULEZ.... on 08:17 - Jul 21 by Darth_Koont |
If Labour can be derailed by ULEZ or any other single issue then what does that say about their “offering”? |
Maybe something really radical like reversing the 2 child policy would have swung it!!  | |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 08:47 - Jul 21 with 4518 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Unfortunately the 10pc that do pay are likely to be amongst the lowest paid, including key workers. That’s fine though, the better off can waft around in their 60k 2.5 tonne Tesla SUV’s powered by their own smugness. |  | | |
| ULEZ.... on 08:54 - Jul 21 with 4489 views | ElderGrizzly |
It’s almost like the Tories lied during the election and enough people bought the lie
|  | | |
| ULEZ.... on 08:54 - Jul 21 with 4485 views | BlueRaider |
I'm no fan of Sadiq Khan on a lot of things, but he is right on ULEZ in my opinion, we have to reduce our emissions. Perhaps he could put a fund in place to scrap polluting cars by using all the money from ULEZ and the congestion charge ! | |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 08:55 - Jul 21 with 4481 views | ElderGrizzly |
| ULEZ.... on 08:36 - Jul 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Maybe something really radical like reversing the 2 child policy would have swung it!! |
So the 20,000 majority over-turned elsewhere was based on? 🙄 | | | |
| ULEZ.... on 08:58 - Jul 21 with 4466 views | Zx1988 |
It's an odd one - but I'm not 100% sure the result in Uxbridge is as bad for Labour as a lot of outlets are making out.
They've not won the seat (or its predecessor) since the 1966 general election, and have only held it twice in its history (1945-1959, and 1966-1970), with their biggest majority in any win being a little over the 2,000 mark. They even failed to take it in the 1997 by-election when Blair was at the peak of his powers, and Labout held a 20+ point lead in the polls.
It seems that there was a good amount of tactical voting, given the fall in the Lib Dem vote, and an absence of either them or the Greens from the ballot would probably have led to a Labour victory.
The Tories seemed to get great success from turning the election into a referendum on a single issue, especially given that the election of a Member of Parliament will have no direct impact upon the plans for the ULEZ. Could there perhaps be an argument that yesterday was somewhat of a protest vote, and that a different result might have occurred had the election taken place in the context of a General Election? | |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 09:18 - Jul 21 with 4387 views | StokieBlue |
| ULEZ.... on 08:47 - Jul 21 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Unfortunately the 10pc that do pay are likely to be amongst the lowest paid, including key workers. That’s fine though, the better off can waft around in their 60k 2.5 tonne Tesla SUV’s powered by their own smugness. |
You've just looked at one side of the debate, the side that suits your narrative. Petrol cars (even quite old ones) qualify for ULEZ exemption.
What about the 100% of kids who have better air quality and as a result a measurable decrease in childhood issues such as asthma?
Your argument is essentially the same one made about why we can't afford to go green - there are going to have to be some tough choices made as none of this is a zero-sum calculation.
At least in London public transport is excellent, something like a ULEZ is far harder to implement in other cities without such good transport.
Let's also not forget, it was the Tories who implemented the original ULEZ zone and it was them who proposed the extension. It's amazing that people are still believing the narrative they spin after Brexit.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| ULEZ.... on 09:19 - Jul 21 with 4385 views | Guthrum |
| ULEZ.... on 08:17 - Jul 21 by Darth_Koont |
If Labour can be derailed by ULEZ or any other single issue then what does that say about their “offering”? |
Very little really. By-elections are swayed more on matters of popularity and specific local issues than a General Election - where either side could end up in power - would be.
ULEZ is a form of tax and people have been taught for decades to always vote for the lowest-taxing option, even if that money would be put to good use and leveraged by economies of scale. |  |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 09:27 - Jul 21 with 4361 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| ULEZ.... on 09:18 - Jul 21 by StokieBlue |
You've just looked at one side of the debate, the side that suits your narrative. Petrol cars (even quite old ones) qualify for ULEZ exemption.
What about the 100% of kids who have better air quality and as a result a measurable decrease in childhood issues such as asthma?
Your argument is essentially the same one made about why we can't afford to go green - there are going to have to be some tough choices made as none of this is a zero-sum calculation.
At least in London public transport is excellent, something like a ULEZ is far harder to implement in other cities without such good transport.
Let's also not forget, it was the Tories who implemented the original ULEZ zone and it was them who proposed the extension. It's amazing that people are still believing the narrative they spin after Brexit.
SB |
You’ve made quite a lot of assumptions there.
How about a more progressive charge using some of the funds for a scrappage scheme for those on low incomes. Or even a surcharge for vehicles of a certain weight or displacement. How is it right for (example) a care worker who cannot afford a newer vehicle to pay the charge, whilst someone else can feasibly drive around a v8 Range Rover and avoid it? | | | |
| ULEZ.... on 09:38 - Jul 21 with 4318 views | StokieBlue |
| ULEZ.... on 09:27 - Jul 21 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
You’ve made quite a lot of assumptions there.
How about a more progressive charge using some of the funds for a scrappage scheme for those on low incomes. Or even a surcharge for vehicles of a certain weight or displacement. How is it right for (example) a care worker who cannot afford a newer vehicle to pay the charge, whilst someone else can feasibly drive around a v8 Range Rover and avoid it? |
I can see one assumption, apologies if it's not the narrative you were pushing. There is some history here in that BDS has used a mangled quote from one of my posts about a month ago to start the thread in order to try and cause some trouble.
I agree that the charging could be implemented better and that is something they should look at. Unfortunately though the point around affordability for low earners is going to apply to nearly every green initiative. There needs to be a proper green fund to cover these things but that's not going to happen under the Tories (and I don't think Labour have committed to something like that either).
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 09:39 - Jul 21 with 4310 views | giant_stow |
| ULEZ.... on 09:27 - Jul 21 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
You’ve made quite a lot of assumptions there.
How about a more progressive charge using some of the funds for a scrappage scheme for those on low incomes. Or even a surcharge for vehicles of a certain weight or displacement. How is it right for (example) a care worker who cannot afford a newer vehicle to pay the charge, whilst someone else can feasibly drive around a v8 Range Rover and avoid it? |
I have no problem with rationning precious resources, but see no reason why the mechanism for that should be ability to pay. |  |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 09:46 - Jul 21 with 4272 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| ULEZ.... on 08:55 - Jul 21 by ElderGrizzly |
So the 20,000 majority over-turned elsewhere was based on? 🙄 |
The government being sh1t.
....and Labour still only increased their vote by 3,000. | |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 09:50 - Jul 21 with 4257 views | GlasgowBlue |
Aren’t you a fan of Angela Rayner?
|  |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 09:52 - Jul 21 with 4245 views | Swansea_Blue |
| ULEZ.... on 09:18 - Jul 21 by StokieBlue |
You've just looked at one side of the debate, the side that suits your narrative. Petrol cars (even quite old ones) qualify for ULEZ exemption.
What about the 100% of kids who have better air quality and as a result a measurable decrease in childhood issues such as asthma?
Your argument is essentially the same one made about why we can't afford to go green - there are going to have to be some tough choices made as none of this is a zero-sum calculation.
At least in London public transport is excellent, something like a ULEZ is far harder to implement in other cities without such good transport.
Let's also not forget, it was the Tories who implemented the original ULEZ zone and it was them who proposed the extension. It's amazing that people are still believing the narrative they spin after Brexit.
SB |
Given people would rather us hurtle towards a climate catastrophe than be late for a work shift or their Zumba class, you’re going to have a tough job selling the benefits of improved air quality through ULEZs. |  |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 10:17 - Jul 21 with 4191 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| ULEZ.... on 09:52 - Jul 21 by Swansea_Blue |
Given people would rather us hurtle towards a climate catastrophe than be late for a work shift or their Zumba class, you’re going to have a tough job selling the benefits of improved air quality through ULEZs. |
I think it is the narrative that rich w@nkers driving Tesla's are going to save us while public transport remains unaffordable is what people have had enough of. | |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 10:21 - Jul 21 with 4164 views | StokieBlue |
| ULEZ.... on 10:17 - Jul 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
I think it is the narrative that rich w@nkers driving Tesla's are going to save us while public transport remains unaffordable is what people have had enough of. |
Public transport in London is excellent and pretty affordable in general. It could be further subsidised of course which would be a good thing. As it stands public transport in London is almost certainly cheaper than running a car.
You're framing an issue in one area based on the realities of other areas (such as Ipswich where public transport is pretty expensive and lacking).
SB [Post edited 21 Jul 2023 10:22]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 11:11 - Jul 21 with 4086 views | ElderGrizzly |
| ULEZ.... on 09:46 - Jul 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
The government being sh1t.
....and Labour still only increased their vote by 3,000. |
On a turn out 30% or so down on a GE? | | | |
| ULEZ.... on 13:43 - Jul 21 with 3915 views | HARRY10 |
| ULEZ.... on 09:46 - Jul 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
The government being sh1t.
....and Labour still only increased their vote by 3,000. |
Yes, that must be a real sickener. That seat could have made all the difference to err ................ a70 seat majority
Whereas a record swing in Selby means nothing. And a similar massive majority over turned in Somerset can similarly be dismissed, I suppose.
Hard decisions will not always find favour, but that is what government is supposed to do.
What Selby and Somerset showed is that yet again voters are prepared to vote tactically to be rid of the vile pestilence masquerading as a government. Sunak has no moral right to remain squatting in number 10. And the fear is he will cause ever more problems as he will seek to pander to voters in order to cling on, and reduce the defeat when the GE does happen. | | | |
| ULEZ.... on 14:49 - Jul 21 with 3868 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| ULEZ.... on 10:21 - Jul 21 by StokieBlue |
Public transport in London is excellent and pretty affordable in general. It could be further subsidised of course which would be a good thing. As it stands public transport in London is almost certainly cheaper than running a car.
You're framing an issue in one area based on the realities of other areas (such as Ipswich where public transport is pretty expensive and lacking).
SB [Post edited 21 Jul 2023 10:22]
|
How much is a 4 zone travel pass per day now out of interest? | |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 15:07 - Jul 21 with 3811 views | StokieBlue |
| ULEZ.... on 14:49 - Jul 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
How much is a 4 zone travel pass per day now out of interest? |
How many people are driving from zone 4 to zone 1? That would involve paying for petrol, congestion charge and parking and that's before you talk about the yearly cost of insurance, tax and maintenance.
The cap for a Zone 4 to Zone 1 for a day is 11.70 GBP. Cheaper than using a car in most circumstances and also a lot easier and probably faster. I believe there are also concessions for key workers. That's also the maximum price if you make more than the simple return journey which seems to be 8 GBP.
It would be nice if rather than obfuscating or ignoring points you could answer why public transport in London is the issue here?
SB [Post edited 21 Jul 2023 15:15]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 18:59 - Jul 21 with 3670 views | Lord_Lucan |
It’s a cash grab and the lemmings love it.
This is just the start. The cameras installed are capable of controlling the next stage - pay per mile.
Why do some people support this authoritarian sh1t?
Hey, Mr controlled, fancy a tummy rub?
The whole thing is off the scale baby but the lemmings refuse to see it. |  |
| |
| ULEZ.... on 19:32 - Jul 21 with 3599 views | HARRY10 |
| ULEZ.... on 18:59 - Jul 21 by Lord_Lucan |
It’s a cash grab and the lemmings love it.
This is just the start. The cameras installed are capable of controlling the next stage - pay per mile.
Why do some people support this authoritarian sh1t?
Hey, Mr controlled, fancy a tummy rub?
The whole thing is off the scale baby but the lemmings refuse to see it. |
You don't need to read the Mail when there's this paranoid rightie stuff.
If you carry a phone about with you, this supposed big brother kns exactly where you are every minute of the day. If you pay by card or phone he also knows what you have bought/paid for, where and exactly when.
90% of cars will not be affected. Cameras that monitor your road usage in these areas have long been in use, just as they are in every major shopping area, pub shop, petrol station etc.
Of course the real sheep are those that spout whatever their betters tell them, unquestionably. It was the same rightie paranoia that told us the smoking ban in public buildings would soon criminalise smoking itself. It would kill off pubs, theatres football grounds, even trains. I suspect they were bleating out the same paranoia when the move to end smog in London as introduced.
So why would 'their betters' want to over excite their sheep. Because they always have had a convenient scapegoat at hand, when needed. Perhaps these paranoids might wish to vent their anger at the man who suggest all this. That big brother (well big, in the sense of fat), one Boris Johnson.
"The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “The world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone is an essential measure to help improve air quality in our city, protect the health of Londoners, and lengthen our lead as the greatest city on earth. Together we can ensure everyone who lives, works in, or visits our city has the cleanest possible air to breathe.”
"Prime Minister David Cameron said: “I welcome this announcement which is a world first and great news for London, helping to enhance the quality of life " | | | |
| ULEZ.... on 20:43 - Jul 21 with 3502 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| ULEZ.... on 19:32 - Jul 21 by HARRY10 |
You don't need to read the Mail when there's this paranoid rightie stuff.
If you carry a phone about with you, this supposed big brother kns exactly where you are every minute of the day. If you pay by card or phone he also knows what you have bought/paid for, where and exactly when.
90% of cars will not be affected. Cameras that monitor your road usage in these areas have long been in use, just as they are in every major shopping area, pub shop, petrol station etc.
Of course the real sheep are those that spout whatever their betters tell them, unquestionably. It was the same rightie paranoia that told us the smoking ban in public buildings would soon criminalise smoking itself. It would kill off pubs, theatres football grounds, even trains. I suspect they were bleating out the same paranoia when the move to end smog in London as introduced.
So why would 'their betters' want to over excite their sheep. Because they always have had a convenient scapegoat at hand, when needed. Perhaps these paranoids might wish to vent their anger at the man who suggest all this. That big brother (well big, in the sense of fat), one Boris Johnson.
"The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “The world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone is an essential measure to help improve air quality in our city, protect the health of Londoners, and lengthen our lead as the greatest city on earth. Together we can ensure everyone who lives, works in, or visits our city has the cleanest possible air to breathe.”
"Prime Minister David Cameron said: “I welcome this announcement which is a world first and great news for London, helping to enhance the quality of life " |
Didn't know you were a Tech Bro, Harry! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
