Where I am there’s endless FUD thrown around about ULEZ. If you’ve got a petrol car that’s under 17 years old or a diesel under 8 (and some older than that) you’re fine.
This. The affordability argument doesn't hold water.
A bit like when there was a taxi protest about the GM CAZ outside Bolton town hall. Most of the taxis present would’ve been exempt…
The ever-present worry here (putting aside the fact that Shapps forced the ULEZ expansion in return for a TfL funding settlement, which they’re glossing over) is that now both main parties will use this as an excuse to roll back environmental policies, in a climate emergency, and in one of the most nature-degraded countries in Europe.
This. The affordability argument doesn’t hold water.
For people on minimum wage in the current economic climate with a non-exempt vehicle that might not be true.
Anecdotally, Bradford has seen the number of home care workers fall substantially since the ULEZ was introduced, and I personally know of 2 who have moved to Kirklees jobs simply to avoid buying a new car.
I'm not arguing that ULEZ isn't necessary nor right but there will be a fair number of people that will struggle on the grounds of affordability.
Similar to the EV thread where affordability wasn't seen to be an issue now as you could get EV's for around £15K.
ransos
Free MemberThis. The affordability argument doesn’t hold water.
Easy to say, but if you're someone who needs a car, and has a non-compliant one, it holds plenty.
Though that's an argument about ULEZ where in this thread we should probably be talking more about the insane result its had on the politics here, where the people who pushed the expansion are benefitting from the backlash. And more importantly how that's being twisted from a mad local case into a general argument against environmental policies
Just listening to Gove (remember him?) talking about their 'radical housebuilding programme'
This seems to amount to doing absolutely nothing in the immediate future (just like they've done for the last few years) and possibly building a few brownfield homes in cities at some indeterminate point in the future
The whole 'policy announcement' is just an attack on labour by telling all the NIMBY's in marginal seats that if labour gets into power it'll build council estates all over the green belt, whereas the Tories will oppose any housebuilding outside cities
We're definitely seeing the attack lines being drawn up for a general election.
Not strictly Rishi, but Oh Dear Lee.
I've seen it a few places and it seems to be genuine.
https://twitter.com/JohnPBowenMusic/status/1683630957264248833
In the absence of anything like actual functioning policies I expect we'll see more of this
A colleagues wife works for the home office and is part of a team that audits passport fraud, shes just been told theres voluntary redundancies all round........ so I suspect the situation will actually get worse
For those that aren’t, suitable cars are abundant and cheap for people that need to drive about.
I have a friend who lives in Bromley. Her and her husband earn ok salaries (tho she only works 3 days a week cos they have 4 kids). Their people carrier is not compliant, and the cheapest compliant replacement they've been able to find big enough for their family is £15k. They're not low wage workers by any means, but with the rise in cost of living and mortgages in particular, they simply dont have that money to spend.
To say suitable cars are abundant and cheap is, frankly, bollox.
I just googled autotrader for 6 seater MPV's within 25 miles of Bromley for £3-5K and it says 21. A quick scroll through suggests about half are ULEZ.
Or for £15K you can get 40 months of ULEZ fees.
Seriously, that is now the choices ahead of us. As I said earlier the Gov should be looking to support folks who genuinely cannot afford to change, but these are difficult times.
When he’s successfully pissed off the notably left-wing the RSPB, the NT and the RSPCA…
Or for £15K you can get 40 months of ULEZ fees.
That’s if you drive every day though, and isn’t one of the points of this to make people stop and think eg. “Maybe we’ll walk rather than drive this polluting vehicle half a mile to school”? There remains a decent amount of evidence that the majority of urban car journeys are <3 miles, and a significant proportion <1 mile.
As an aside given that both this and the SKS thread are descending into ULEZ debates, do we not need a thread for that?
And now he's ordering a review of low traffic neighbourhoods, wouldn't mind if it was a genuine review but his statements in support of car drivers says not 😠 electioneering at its very worst.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66351785
It's purely to appeal to their core voters. The review will go ahead, not give it's results until after the next election but they will hint it says to scrap the ULEZ, the report will then be published saying it's a tight choice but they will have to let it go ahead/stay and then they'll blame it on the Labour London Mayor and completely gloss over that it was actually forced through by the Tory govt as part of the latest TfL funding agreements (they got extra funding only if they implemented the ULEZ expansion).
As for the tweets Billoddie linked to? Could you be more overtly appealing to racist, Brexit voting morons without actually saying so?
Opened the BBC site, saw the headline and swore loudly.
Just shows how spineless they are in terms of quality of life, active travel and wider climate change.
It just shows they have zero in the locker. It's policy entirely driven on the back of what happened in Uxbridge.
Spineless is the word. No long term, ambitious, impactful change - just dog whistle vote grab.
See also, "small boats" and "bendy bananas"
****servatives! That's all I've got.
It’s purely to appeal to their core voters.
No it's not. It is about making as many car drivers as possible believe there is a "war on motorists", that they are being wronged by leftist elites. It is a clear election strategy to get an "in" to voters through a falsehood that many will believe they are being wronged by, without revealing that social and financial inequality is really at the root of the problem. It is also something they see the way the current labour party acts and expect to force another change in direction and submission to populism.
It just shows they have zero in the locker. It’s policy entirely driven on the back of what happened in Uxbridge.
Which is one of the reasons why Sadiq Khan's ulez expansion is so wrong.
Unless you accept that it is designed to increase revenue to a plug hole in Transport for London's finances left by pandemic lockdowns, it is an unnecessary solution to a problem which is currently resolving itself without any further interference thanks to the strict emission requirements to all new vehicles, that will be used by climate change deniers and all those opposed to low traffic neighbourhoods to undermine important and absolutely necessary legislation.
Climate change deniers and the anti-cycling lobby, as well as a Tory Party on its knees, will be very grateful to Sadiq Khan for giving them such useful ammunition.
Sadiq Khan should at least be honest and admit that ulez expansion is designed to create revenue from those least able to afford it during a cost of living crisis, instead of dishonestly tying it up to environmental issues on which it will have negligible effect and are currently resolving themselves anyway.
The latest developments were completely predictable.
Unless you accept that it is designed to increase revenue to a plug hole in Transport for London’s finances left by pandemic lockdowns
Was it not a requirement for TfL to get access to government funding?
Yes, TfL need money, but the government could have, you know, just given them some, rather than divert the blame on to Khan and fuel yet another division in their culture war.
Was it not a requirement for TfL to get access to government funding?
Yup, when Sadiq Khan asked for further money from the government to plug the huge hole left by the pandemic in TfL's finances they asked him what would he do to guarantee TfL's future sustainability.
He offered ulez expansion as a solution. What a great idea they thought, an unpopular policy by a Labour mayor to squeeze money from low income voters who are the most likely to vote Labour.
And we are where we are today.
Sadiq Khan has pretended that the policy is only to do with environmental issues and nothing else. Not everyone believes him, and those that do are lumping it with climate change issues, which it has nothing to do with.
The Tories and climate change deniers and anti-cyclists are all predictably exploiting the issue for their various different agendas.
Yes, TfL need money, but the government could have, you know, just given them some, rather than divert the blame on to Khan and fuel yet another division in their culture war.
This is perfect framing.
Lack of money is as much part of the political war on winning an election. We have money for this but not for that.
Total manipulation of the public purse.
During the austerity years - believe it or not a considerable amount of cash was still spent/taxation cut. While we all thought austerity was a deficit reduction programme the Tory government still added 640bn more than offset by tax 2010-2019.
Can I just add not only do I believe that Sadiq Khan's ulez expansion is wrong, certainly at least now, imo it represents a serious setback in the current political war against climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists.
He has made it a little bit harder to win that political war. Being honest about the reason for ulez expansion would have helped although obviously it would have made it impossible for him to justify it.
Rishi Sunak is pretty right wing, he's certainly not a moderate one nation Tory. The thing that makes him seem moderate is that compared to his predecessors he's more pragmatic, rather than being a hard-core ideologue (Truss) or a liar (Johnson). In this he's closer to Cameron and Osbourne who were adept at presenting the acceptable face of what was a very right wing agenda (de-funding large parts of the state).
The other thing that resonates with me, is hearing Nick Clegg talk about their time in coalition, where he said that the Conservative attitude was that if a group weren't likely to vote for them (cyclists and pedestrians?) then they really didn't care what they thought. The Conservative focus has always been on those people who can get them and keep them in power.
Taking this into account, I'm not surprised that he's announced this. It's also the latest in a long line of Conservative performative policies that are intended to gain positive press with little thought to practical implications.
No it’s not. It is about making as many car drivers as possible believe there is a “war on motorists”, that they are being wronged by leftist elites. It is a clear election strategy to get an “in” to voters through a falsehood that many will believe they are being wronged by, without revealing that social and financial inequality is really at the root of the problem. It is also something they see the way the current labour party acts and expect to force another change in direction and submission to populism.
It's a reaction to what happened in Uxbridge, the Labour candidate that just lost gained a few extra votes by publicly questioning the ULEZ that afr out form the city centre. Polling analysis showed that it cost the Tories a decent chunk of their core support as their candidate was strangely quiet on the issue, hence the announcement from Sunak now.
The "War on Motorists" is a more general one, one which the Tories are absolutely capable of changing as they are in power right now but they do nothing. Amazingly it's all blamed on Labour by a lot of the motoring forums!
And now he’s ordering a review of low traffic neighbourhoods, wouldn’t mind if it was a genuine review but his statements in support of car drivers says not 😠 electioneering at its very worst.
Multitudinous problems with this, firstly an LTN isn’t terribly well defined, secondly all the evidence suggests that standing on an anti-active travel platform doesn’t work, and thirdly even Tory voters tend to be engaged on environmental/air quality issues.
This smacks of desperation, trying to consolidate the core suburban/rural vote to minimise the damage at an election even they must know they’re likely to lose.
the Conservative attitude was that if a group weren’t likely to vote for them (cyclists and pedestrians?) then they really didn’t care what they thought.
It’s a pity the King of the North doesn’t apply this, as we might have a CAZ by now rather than having poor and worsening air quality.
The “War on Motorists” is a more general one, one which the Tories are absolutely capable of changing as they are in power right now but they do nothing. Amazingly it’s all blamed on Labour by a lot of the motoring forums!
You’d think they’d cotton on that a man shown to not even know how to pay for fuel at a filling station, and so often taking short flights in helicopters and jets above their heads to avoid travelling down here with them, might be part of the problem.
But blaming Labour for everything is a growing trend. It worked in the North East of England and elsewhere, unseating Labour MPs due to the effects of having a Conservative government. No reason why it can’t happen more widely. As our transport infrastructure is shown to be not up to the job after over a decade of Conservative rule… blame that on Labour for wanting people to be able to walk to school or the shops or the local pub safely. As our NHS waiting lists grow and grow, blame it on Labour resisting anti Union laws aimed at breaking our health workforce. As the cost of living spirals, blame Labour for not supporting Brexit and the chance to avoid raising standards…
"The future for this country is in imposing fewer burdens and being more lightly regulated than the EU, not in unilaterally imposing additional job-destroying burdens to meet an unnecessary and unworkable deadline."
[from that BBC link about the “review” of traffic policy being trailed in the Telegraph]
Does Sunak mean deadlines for improving air quality in cities? Or deadlines for reducing climate changing emissions? Either way, they’re not unnecessary, and are only unworkable if you’re not prepared to work to achieve them.
Add air quality and climate change to the Brexit bonus of river and sea water quality.
Rishi Sunak was busy painting and planting in South London this weekend, what did you do?
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/23688849.uk-prime-minister-rishi-sunak-spotted-dartford-sidcup/
"Rishi Sunak was spotted visiting south east London yesterday, painting walls and planting with local volunteers."
Weird thing with LTZ is they increase footfall in shops, have no effect on traffic and local folk approve by a big margin. Its just the objectors are very noisy
I mean no increase in traffic congestion in surrounding streets - of course it reduces it in the LTZ. weird but I think thats true
They are simply doing silly things so that when Labour are in power they inherit a very broken country and will struggle to make progress fixing the problems.
That gives them the opportunity to attack Labour in the right wing media so they will hope to win the election in 2029. The biggest victory of the Tories in recent years was that they convinced the electorate that Labour caused the global financial crisis in 2007-9.
Sunak is apparently coming to Scotland today. How close will the nearest member of the public be? 1 km?
He's gone full on eco-terrorist now.
New oil and gas licences for "energy security" (ignoring that it can take 15+ years to actually get new oil and gas out of a new field).
End the war on cars immediately with reviews of 20mph and LTN , be generally anti clean air, anti active travel.
Some oil/gas/auto industry donors must have been busy the last few days. He's suddenly woken up with a new mission to really trash the very last vestiges of the environment.
The dinosaur party. Completely given up on the younger generations. Every policy aimed at the pensioner vote.
So we need more engagement of the youth vote. How does that happen if the alternatives to the Tories are just a bit shit?
The Green parties manifesto and intentions seem good to me, why can't young voters vote Green?
The dinosaur party. Completely given up on the younger generations. Every policy aimed at the pensioner vote.
It could back fire to some extent, pensioners have grandchildren.... my mother voted green in 19 :/
how depressing to now feel i live in a regressive country that still panders to large fossil fuel business and car users.
vote out the Tories now
It could back fire to some extent
It almost certainly will. The evidence suggests that the electorate is largely in favour of green policies, at least until they impact directly on them. New oil and gas fields are sufficiently abstract…
It looks like it’s quite literally Scorched Earth from now until they’re voted out
That gives them the opportunity to attack Labour in the right wing media so they will hope to win the election in 2029. The biggest victory of the Tories in recent years was that they convinced the electorate that Labour caused the global financial crisis in 2007-9.
Yep, not a single person who's ever quoted to me that it was Labour's fault as they had weak regulation was able to respond to the response "show me evidence where Tories wanted stronger regulations in that period?".
IMO Sunak is a proper old fashioned capitalist, and won't rest until the +99% of us are bled dry so the <1% are even richer and control even more. If ordinary folk think it's tough now, wait until they vote Tory again next time, then they'll really discover what "tough" is.
Oh, and this (Scottish) oil - I thought it was due to have run out by now?
Did someone say regressive?
I didn’t realise they were going full Clarkson with attacks on speed limits. Not that anything will come of it, just headline chasing.
Thing is, piling out all the “burn more” policies this weekend after narrowly winning a once very safe seat… what’s the game plan? Do they think this stuff is sticky enough to get them to an election, or is Sunak just hoping for a small bump in the polls to see off challengers to his leadership internally?
Sunak obviously piling everything in to the ULEZ swing at the Uxbridge by-election
tbf it will probably win back a few votes with the UKIP/Reform demographic but Im not sure how much mileage 😉 there is in all that
Also UK oil infrastructure needs huge investment and as TJ says whats left is not the easy to get stuff, the North Sea stuff is also just Hot Air 😉 but again it pleases the people that believe the telegraph is a trusted source for scientific info
Yep, not a single person who’s ever quoted to me that it was Labour’s fault as they had weak regulation was able to respond to the response “show me evidence where Tories wanted stronger regulations in that period?
George Osbourne was shadow chancellor during that period and was constantly attacking labour for the 'over-regulation' of the UK finance sector and demanding 'red tape' be torn up to allow it more freedom
When his mates and paymasters in The City then nearly bankrupted the country, he did a 180 and then with the aid of the right wing press, successfully re-wrote history