Forum menu
That area of the southwest is either Tory or Lib-Dem, always has been, same as our area, Labour just don't get into these places down here and the best course of action in a by-election like yesterday is to stand down and make sure you don't take votes off the candidate best suited to unseat the tories.
It'll be the same at the next election for me, i'll vote Lib-Dem as they are the ones who can unseat the tory MP, they've also just lost the council down here which is nice to see, even better, a week after losing it the MP was complaining about the council and how they were not able to sort out strike action, which started under them 🤣
The strategy didn’t work at all in Somerton and Frome, the result there was worse than in 2019 – a drop of 10% in Labour’s share of the vote.
Tactical voting - good to see that the electorate got it without being corralled into it.
What happened yesterday is all about how unpopular the Tories are with voters and how people will vote for whoever they need to to defeat them.
Good. That is the first step to healing, removing whatever it is that is doing the harm.
even for an obsessed Starmer hater.
Exactly, how dare he question dear leader, Purge him! Purge him now with fire!!!
Eh? So the evidence of the Starmer thread isn't that Ernie spends too much time being upset at the Labour leader and the clear evidence of last night's elections (two out of three) was that tactical voting played a part?
I'm no huge fan of Starmer but you lot are unhinged!
Tactical voting is definitely a "thing" now.
Long may it continue.👍
I am not upset with Starmer at all, he is well on the road to proving that Labour under neoliberal control is not answer. Obviously he needs to win a general election to prove that fact so any step towards that goal must be welcomed.
And I have no idea why you think the "Starmer strategy" worked in Somerton and Frome.
Can you explain why a 10% drop in Labour's share of the vote in Somerton and Frome proves that Starmer's strategy is working?
The message from yesterday's by-elections is anyone but the Tories, unless you live in Labour controlled Greater London.
Edit : I never had you down as a Starmer fan chestrockwell, aren't you a Tory?
Or is that precisely why you are keen Starmer?
theotherjonv
Full MemberDidn’t de Pfeffel introduce ULEZ zones? Why’s Khan carrying the can for executing a policy set in motion (and needed, after all) by his predecessor.
Mentioned in the other thread but Khan was forced into the fast expansion by Grant Shapps, who made it an effective condition of TfL funding.
Starmer says Labour's failure in Uxbridge was down to Ulez expansion (and not his own unpopularity, oh no) and Khan "should reflect on it". Does he not know it was a result of strictures laid down by Grant Shapps? Good gob, the man does so many somersaults he'd have no trouble running away with the circus. He is líterally joining in with Tory hypocrisy against his own side.
I don't know much about this Ulez but does this mean Starmer will now move even rightwards on surrounding issues?
If so, what a time to be alive - from the unhinged Starmer class of 23.
(If only more so pretend left-wingers were critical of Starmer - country might move away from the very system they all hate. Quite bizarre.)
I'm finding it very painful the same group of people that hate what the Tories have done seem to endorse moving in their direction via Labour's roadmap.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1682273816657920001?t=VprIuiVQCJX4ouNDfZoPwg&s=19
The anger on twitter at the Ulez thing from the regular Centrists - but then Starmer will move right and they will say - yep makes sense. Thereby moving all progessive policies rightwards.
The path of winning a election via beating a drum to right-wing reactionary nonsense versus solid left wing arguments appears to have vanished.
But my god the left-wing arguments ought to be damn robust by now, more so than any time in my history.
I thought Starmers response on the ULEZ was superb.
"The reality is that Ulez was a Conservative policy, introduced by Boris Johnson as mayor and recently agreed by this government to be expanded in May 2020, as part of Covid loans to the mayor. It helps no one in politics if we are not honest about the reality of pollution in our cities and the health consequences of this, but we also need to be honest about what investments are needed to deliver policies with public support.
This is what the net zero review very clearly set out: we need long-term investment to encourage private sector investment and to create a just transition by establishing the effective incentives to decarbonise."
Oh wait that was the tory mp Chris Skidmore.
iirc SKS's response when recently challenged on climate was "we are on the side of economic growth" not of course in a prepared speech in front of a hand picked supportive audience, but when confronted by children he wasn't able to put up a façade quickly enough.
Oh wait that was the tory mp Chris Skidmore.
Lmfao. You got me.
Quite hard to disagree with this assessment. Mind you, Lab are all too often disappointing on environmental matters, then wonder why they lose youth votes to the Greens.
https://twitter.com/james_bg/status/1682256226887843841
800 votes went green. Pro euope pro environment. A decent number of votes for a squeezed 3rd party and those votes cost labour the seat
This i fear being repeated in the GE. With labour's Brexit stance costing them votes and seats. Its a continuing pattern over recent by elections. There is little evidence of a pro labour vote just an anti tory one
You keep beating that drum, but it is the smallest drum in the whole of England(sic).
There will have to be a manifesto come election time. It cant be full of nothing can it?
There will have to be a manifesto come election time. It cant be full of nothing can it?
No it can't be. I expect the next Labour election manifesto to be full of platitudes and attacks on the Conservatives.
The lack of practical solutions on offer will be blamed on the Conservatives for mismanaging the economy.
With the Tories so deeply unpopular it shouldn't cause a problem, in fact the lack of substance will make it harder for the right-wing press to attack it.
The problem will start after the honeymoon period when simply blaming and attacking the Tories won't be enough and voters expect Prime Minister Starmer to deliver.
No doubt when that happens Starmer will attempt to rely on the fact that he promised so little.
172 votes lost to a squeezed third party candidate with a bin on his head. If only Sir Keir would start wearing a bin on his head.
Well he has faked having integrity, so wearing a bin on his head might be a way to also faking having a personality.
I am not upset with Starmer at all, he is well on the road to proving that Labour under neoliberal control is not answer. Obviously he needs to win a general election to prove that fact so any step towards that goal must be welcomed.
And I have no idea why you think the “Starmer strategy” worked in Somerton and Frome.
Can you explain why a 10% drop in Labour’s share of the vote in Somerton and Frome proves that Starmer’s strategy is working?
The message from yesterday’s by-elections is anyone but the Tories, unless you live in Labour controlled Greater London.
Edit : I never had you down as a Starmer fan chestrockwell, aren’t you a Tory?
Or is that precisely why you are keen Starmer?
So you don't think tactical voting had anything to do with the number of votes Labour got in Somerton, or the Libs in Selby? Do you not think that Labour are quite happy to see their vote drop in some areas, where they are not going to win providing it increase in seats they hope to win?
Never voted Tory, never will and having spent over 15 years as a very active trade union rep, defending our conditions against both Tory and Labour cuts, it'll take more than a narcissistic internet bore to upset me but you go right ahead and try.
Anyway, I see this thread is still the same people agreeing with themselves regardless of anything actually happening in the real world so I'll be off.
So you don’t think tactical voting had anything to do with the number of votes Labour got in Somerton, or the Libs in Selby?
Why let facts get in the way of the self destructive Labour narrative eh?
Never underestimate their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
it’ll take more than a narcissistic internet bore to upset me but you go right ahead and try.
That's quite a bold statement, to use your language chestrockwell, from someone who describes me as an "obsessed Starmer hater" spending "too much time being upset at the Labour" and says to anyone who isn't supportive of Starmer "you lot are unhinged!"
You do actually sound quite upset.
Of course the votes Labour got in Somerton, or the Libs in Selby, are down to tactical voting. That is exactly my point - anyone but the Tories is obviously the message from voters. If you accept that then it doesn't provide proof that "Starmer's strategy" is working. It proves that the Tories are very unpopular with voters.
As far as my views on Starmer, which you completely misrepresent, is concerned, I have repeatedly said that imo Starmer isn't the problem, if you think he is then imo you don't understand the problem. Replacing Starmer will achieve nothing.
The Labour Party, at least the Parliamentary Labour Party, creates a totally hostile environment for policies which offer a radical alternative to the status quo and Tories neoliberalism. If there was ever any doubt Jeremy Corbyn's disastrous leadership proved that.
The issue imo isn't personalities but policies. Changing the management but keeping the policies will achieve nothing.
For that reason I am a huge fan of Starmer's 10 pledges, which you don't seem to be chestrockwell. In fact no one bangs on more how right Starmer is with his 10 pledges than me, I am always providing a link to Starmer's website. Here it is again:
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Starmer is perfectly capable of offering a radical alternative to the Tories, and when he does he gets my support.
I am also far more optimistic post-next general election than some on here. I know that change will come because I know that change must happen. The current neoliberal solutions are simply not working.
'Change must happen' ? The changes on offer seem to be more privatisation of the NHS, more austerity, weak environmental policies, greater efficiency in processing migrants, starving kids (no change there). Positive changes won't come without a fight, it's been made clear time and again that you cannot trust these people if left to their own devices, they are/aspire to be part of the establishment. They need to be held to account.
As entirely predicted, Lab are now talking about rolling back environmental policies (which seems very like chasing the votes of people unlikely to vote for them anyway).
Just what is the point of the Labour Party?
The point of the Labour party is simply to become another Conservative party.
Hope the outraged Centrists over on the Sunak thread that were outraged at voters' reaction to ULEZ will be outraged at Labour's potential deflection here.
(They won't be.)
Edited: I didn't mean to click send
"comes with a fence to sit on...." Lol.
Usually falls off the right hand side.
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
I'm rapidly becoming very dubious about SKS. Arguing the ULEZ thing against his own side and a Labour Mayor is catastrophic stupidity, especially in a borough that Labour have never come close to winning.
He's almost a Tory. Chasing populist crap, willing to U-turn at a moment's notice, never committing to anything. Currently not promising anything as an improvement from the current shower in charge. No ambition, seemingly no thoughts about making things better. 🤷🏻♂️
One thing that dismays me is Labour joining this 'we lost in Uxbridge, and that proves our green policies are bad' narrative.
It was a massive swing and could equally be presented as 'we very nearly overturned a huge majority and so we need to go just a bit further and get our message across more effectively'. 🤷
I've only got a green rosette so can't give anonymous likes but I'll give you a writen like to that post, crazy-legs.
@doris5000 This was the fear immediately following the result. Lab are now calling for the ULEZ to be delayed which would mean it would still be a live issue going into the GE, whereas if they get on with it, allow it to bed in and reveal a lot of the scaremongering for what it was, people will have moved on.
Abandoning environmental policies seems a sure-fire way of a) looking like he’s got no principles, and b) driving a lot of people into the arms of the Greens, which splits the non-Tory vote. And environmental stuff apparently remains popular with the electorate…
And environmental stuff apparently remains popular with the electorate…
The council elections in both '22 and '23 has many (mostly Tory/independent) candidates standing on anti-LTN/anti-active travel platforms.
We'll rip out the hated cycle lanes/LTNs. We'll reverse the hated Clean Air Zone and put money back into the pockets of hard working motorists.
With very very few exceptions, they all got annihilated at the polls. Now not all of that was environmental stuff, some will have been simply "we're not voting for the ****ing Tories", some will have been other issues etc but the point remains that "generally making the environment a better place" is a vote winner. All the negative stuff is a tiny but very vocal minority.
Stand by the policies, allow them to bed in, it's always a winner.
Aye, even in Rochdale, a town where LTN filters were set on fire the night they were installed, the councillor who’d publicly backed the scheme in his ward was comfortably re-elected.
I’d not go so far as to say that supporting active travel (and by extension other driving restriction measures) is a vote winner, but it certainly isn’t a vote loser (and as I’m sure I’ve said before, I’d expect people who oppose this stuff won’t vote Lab/LD/Green anyway)
Meanwhile in GM we have no CAZ despite worsening air quality and traffic, as they made the mistake of having a referendum on a congestion charge years ago rather than JFDI and letting it bed in.
Abandoning environmental policies seems a sure-fire way of a) looking like he’s got no principles, and b) driving a lot of people into the arms of the Greens, which splits the non-Tory vote.
This and other right wing policies have lost Labour my support. Too short-term in outlook, when long-term thinking and policies are required to ensure we hand a habitable planet onto the future.
The ULEZ stuff is really disappointing. Like many people, I've put pinned my hopes on Labour bringing back sensible, grown up politics. That kind of populist approach is a potential deal breaker for me and would force me to seriously consider where I put my vote. It's especially mad when you consider the ULEZ was cross party policy.
And environmental stuff apparently remains popular with the electorate…
Yes environmental issues are extremely important to me and it is partly the reason I voted Green in last year's local elections. In fact I don't honestly think that there is a more important issue facing humanity than tackling the causes of climate change.
I don't however support the expansion of the ulez. Nitrogen dioxide although harmful to health isn't a greenhouse gas, and its reduction is constantly occurring without expanding the ulez.
I don't have any figures for Greater London but do know that UK wide nearly 2 million cars and vans are scrapped every year. On the basis that Greater London represents 13% of the UK population it is reasonable imo to assume that Londoners scrap approximately a quarter of a million cars and vans a year, the overwhelming majority old, not new.
So left alone the problem will resolve itself fairly quickly. And we are not talking about massively polluting vehicles, in the case of diesel cars and vans anything pre 2015, so it can be a low emission vehicle just not ultra low.
Now in the midst of a cost of living crisis is not a good time to force people who are genuinely struggling with rising prices, and depressed wages which aren't keeping up with food and energy price increases, to get rid of a perfectly good 8 or 9 year old car and replace it with a much newer car, the prices of which have been driven up by the threat of ulez expansion.
A Labour politician should understand all that. Of course Londoners care about the quality of the air that they breath, but the problem is resolving itself, I say that as someone who has in very recent times cycled daily into central London. There is no justification imo to callously disregard the huge financial consequences ulez expansion can have on struggling individuals, families, and small businesses.
IMHO
Agree, ULEZ is not about climate change and if it leads to people buying new cars rather than just not using their cars then it could arguably be worse for climate change as each new car built makes it worse.
Finally...its taken Labour to not win a seat before everyone starts talking ulez.
I'm one of the people effected by ulez, my van is LEZ and I have till 8 Aug to scrap it...so I wish that would hurry up and scrap this policy...fast.
In what world would any one think its a great idea to charge people £12.50 a day to go to work?
In what world would any one think its a great idea to charge people £12.50 a day to go to work?
One in which the pollution caused by your van is making people and the planet ill?
I’m one of the people effected by ulez, my van is LEZ and I have xxxxxxxxxx had 18 months to sort this out
FTFY
I'm sympathetic really, and in this current COL crisis I think we should be looking at not postponing but supporting those most affected with scrappage schemes or grants or whatever; but the fact is we're all for progress as long as it costs us nothing and there's a reckoning coming fast for that attitude because the bill's coming for all of us.
On a tangent, if you need a non-ULEZ compliant vehicle for work purposes, why can’t the ULEZ charge can be claimed back against tax as a necessary expense?
I take it that the vehicles used at the tower, Hampton place,Kensington,Kew,Buckingham palace etc that are older and add to pollution will be exempt ?.
Car pollution kills people of all ages
Fine, so make it a country wide policy then. If I go into my nearest towns (Bournemouth, Christchurch etc,.) the traffic is ****ing awful all day long every day - why not ULEZ there?
Car pollution causes illness in children.
Which is why all new cars sold in the UK must be compliant with the very latest technology concerning pollution.
And why despite this being a decades old problem with issue is currently being resolved surprisingly quickly - there are not many non-compliant petrol vehicles over 16 years old for obvious reasons. The problem is that technology for diesel vehicles is much more recent and there are still quite a few diesel vehicles over 6 years old, although obviously less and less every year.
Almost half of households in London, 46%, don't have a car. Londoners are more likely to own a car if they live in outer London, live in an area with poor access to public transport, have a higher income, have a child in the house, and are of Western European nationality.
For people on lower incomes who live in outer London, in an area with poor access to public transport, and have children, ulez is going to be a huge problem which is likely to have massive financial consequences.
It is easy for affluent middle-class individuals to tell people with non-compliant cars "just go out and buy a new car", and who after all doesn't want a new car? Unfortunately the reality for a lot of people isn't that simple.
And it is precisely that attitude and lack of understanding which has caused the growing disconnect between ordinary people and the Labour Party. The Labour Party now a party of middle-class professionals, it is perceived not to understand the issues which affect many ordinary working people, a perception which is fairly accurate imo - you only need to read Labour supporting stw for that attitude, some seem to even hate them.
There are 2.56m cars licensed in London. This equates to an average of 0.3 cars per adult. In total, 46 per cent of households do not have a car, 40 per cent have one car and 12 per cent have two or more cars, with very few households owning more than two cars.
People in Paris and London will vote for a mayors who restrict polluting cars because the car isn't their main means of transport and the pollution is obvious and they suffer, however, in small towns a mayor who restricts car use will soon get ousted because most people have/depend on cars and the effects aren't as obvious.
All heavily polluted cities will get ULEZ of some form eventually. Labour held Manchester has delayed theirs while pushing for more support for people hit from central government. Wasn’t an option for London for reasons already mentioned (imposition of timing by a Tory government during Covid funding rounds). Of course those areas around London where feelings are strongest against ULEZ tend to vote for Tory councils doing little to help transition, and Tory MPs supporting a government resisting added support for those effected.
Love all the talk of uturns around this issue ignoring that it is the Tories who have Uturned on having ULEZ at all, Labour are just looking at timing and support.
Fine, so make it a country wide policy then.
It does need to be a countrywide policy but the current Government have washed their hands of any sort of environmental issues - they're busy allowing water companies to wash pure shit into the rivers, you really think they're going to introduce an unpopular nationwide policy on pay-per-mile or Clean Air Zone?!
Instead they've left it to individual councils (often Labour ones) to push ahead with hyper-local policies, different in every city, and then let the councils deal with the fallout.
What's more annoying is the way SKS is focusing on this one negative. We "lost" Uxbridge.
No, you never had Uxbridge. You won in Selby and you made massive gains in Uxbridge. Have sine conviction in your policies you weak little man.
Fine, so make it a country wide policy then.
Yup, if it is such a great policy it should apply to the whole country and be the national policy of the Labour Party and LibDems etc
In the neighbouring borough to me, Sutton, the LibDem majority which controls the council is opposed to ulez expansion. They don't enjoy the same level of access to public transport as in central London, and Sadiq Khan hasn't promised to build them an underground or tram system. He could at least have committed TfL to expand Croydon's tram system into Sutton. But he simply doesn't care enough, not his problem if people in outer London are poorly served by public transport.
Labour held Manchester has delayed theirs while pushing for more support for people hit from central government.
There’s a bit more to it than that - GMCA want to have a non-charging scheme (there’s no evidence this will work) and exempt private cars (so it only affects vehicles doing productive work). There’s also been the usual amount of scaremongering - there was a massive taxi protest in Bolton almost entirely made up of Priuses, which would be exempt.
HMG are now saying they need to have a charging CAZ covering Manchester and Salford rather than the full 10 boroughs, where the air quality is worse(ning) unless GMCA can prove their scheme will work (which as above there isn’t).
It does all really feel like the King of the North being unwilling to spend any political capital risking upsetting people who (if our local FB is to be believed) see it as their right to drive a smoky old horse box wherever and whenever they like, and who probably didn’t vote for him anyway.
Edit - at least part of this is a legacy of the backlash against the GM congestion charge, which was proposed something like 15 years ago
There’s also been the usual amount of scaremongering .....
....their right to drive a smoky old horse box wherever and whenever they like
Quite.
I have no idea what a smokey old horse box is but it does sound a fairly scary.
But he simply doesn’t care enough, not his problem if people in outer London are poorly served by public transport.
“Doesn’t care”… or needs half a billion quid from central government to extend the tram system to Sutton? Still, the local Conservative MP makes a big deal out of it. It’s the same story, Tories successfully making grist out of their own government’s short comings by laying the blame with Kahn.
There’s a bit more to it than that
Very true. Thanks for filling in some gaps.
Stick with no alternative is just beating people for the sake of it. Very few people driving a non ULEZ compliant vehicle are doing out of choice. Like most of the gren changes it needs to government led and paid for. Real scrappage scheme thay allows people to buy something equivalent but compliant. While were at it, sort the subsidies for electric vehicles to allow more compliant vehicles to enter the second hand market, subsidise private solar generation and massively upgrade the electircal grid (home charging with on site generation will help with that). But no 2.6 billion on a barge, Brexit, allowing the unions to destroy the rail network (how many journeys by train have been lost due to the strikes), it's almost like they want to see the country burn.
It’s the same story, Tories successfully making grist out of their own government’s short comings by laying the blame with Kahn.
Eh, Sutton is controlled by the LibDems, they have been highly critical of Sadiq Khan not doing anything to improve public transport infrastructure in their borough before ulez expansion.
I mentioned the Tory MP only in the post you’ve extracted a quote from. Literally in the previous line.
And I’m out… no point joining in a debate when you’re here.
I haven't extracted any quote from any MP
Edited for your edit;
And I’m out… no point joining in a debate when you’re here.
Nah, you are out because you are struggling. You constantly challenge me whenever you can. They idea that you don't like arguing with me is ludicrous, you appear obsessed with it.
A LibDem controlled London council:
"Whilst we welcome initiatives which may improve air quality and people’s health, any expansion of the ULEZ to Sutton must be accompanied by significant investment in public transport, better cycling and walking infrastructure, a fair and comprehensive scrappage scheme and an extension of the planned implementation date”.
With the current cost of living crisis and higher fuel costs, due consideration must be given to adding to residents financial burdens, so any proposal must reflect the equity issues about affordability of new vehicles, which is more likely to hit those on lower wages hardest.
This will also apply to our staff and contractors who deliver key services within the borough and as such may incur the daily charges, for example the NHS, social workers, care staff, emergency services personnel and waste collection operatives.This will include people who travel between London and Surrey, where we know areas are even less well served by public transport than the borough is.
Fine, so make it a country wide policy then.
It's policy where the pollution is worst.
Eighteen year old petrol and eight year old diesel vehicles comply.
It’s policy where the pollution is worst.
So what we are saying is that some pollution is acceptable the only issue is what level of pollution is acceptable.
Where are the figures that suggests pollution in outer London isn't improving fast enough? Since this appears now to be a judgement call.
Where are the figures that suggests pollution in outer London isn’t improving fast enough
There is no shortage of compliant vehicles for every available budget. You're arguing that convenience is more important than our children's health.
I haven’t extracted any quote from any MP
No because that's not what Kelvin said you did, Ernie. Try reading his post again. He's right, it's impossible to debate with someone who is forever misinterpreting and distorting what one says. Your either don't read properly (if I'm generous) or deliberately distort what people say. Then you start asking questions to put words into people's mouths, This kind of gem:
Where are the figures that suggests pollution in outer London isn’t improving fast enough?
Better things to do and:
And I’m out… no point joining in a debate when you’re here.
Where are the figures that suggests pollution in outer London isn’t improving fast enough?
The policy isn't based on rate of improvement it's based on what can be done to get the absolute value below the recommended safe level, immediately. That's why the national government policy forces clean air zones. Local councils can't just reframe it as rate of improvement however much you think it's a good idea.
I'll put my hat in the ring as another potential labour voter being pushed to the greens. Will be writing to my MP to let them know they are going to lose my vote if they keep going the populist route
Love all the talk of uturns around this issue ignoring that it is the Tories who have Uturned on having ULEZ at all, Labour are just looking at timing and support.
So why did Starmer ask Khan to reflect on a Ulez extension then?
He could have said what you said.
If we've learnt one thing about Starmer is he will probably take a path that looks like a U-turn.
So what we are saying is that some pollution is acceptable the only issue is what level of pollution is acceptable.
Well duh, pretty much everything humans do causes pollution, it's becomes an issue if it directly impacts people or the environment.
Eh, Sutton is controlled by the LibDems, they have been highly critical of Sadiq Khan not doing anything to improve public transport infrastructure in their borough before ulez expansion.
Much of it isn't to do with Khan anyway.
Boroughs have their own transport plans and strategies and can bid for cash from central Government for LTNs, they can introduce Controlled Parking Zones, put in cycle hangars, EV charging points, bus gates, and host cycle /scooter hire schemes including things like e-cargo bike trials. All of that is in their power.
And the boroughs opposing ULEZ have done **** all to give people viable alternative transport options and then mostly blamed the Mayor which is inaccurate and unfair.
LOL
Sutton is very badly served by public transport compared to inner London, despite what might still remain from Victorian infrastructure according to your google search.
Instead of laughing why don't you read the link above from Sutton council? It is an in-depth carefully researched piece, not based on two minutes googling.
It is this arrogant dismissal of people's genuine concerns which cost Labour Uxbridge last week.
Furthermore it makes the struggle to win the argument for greater CO2 restrictions and to take climate change seriously even more difficult.
There is a political battle going on over CO2 controls and this sort of shite does nothing to help.
And the boroughs opposing ULEZ have done **** all to give people viable alternative transport options
All gets a bit chicken and egg but with thier budgets slashed, what should they be funding these viable alternatives with?
Our shop is in Sutton borough (certainly not in Sutton!) and the people protesting outside our shop about ulez are the same ones protesting about masks and chem trails.
We are on a crossroads and for a lot of the day cars are sat at the lights pumping out fumes. If those cars were pumping out less crap I'd appreciate it.
There were 3 Escorts sat at the lights earlier this year. The amount of fumes they emitted was unbelievable it was like being back in Cuba.
Cleaner Air Now.
All gets a bit chicken and egg but with thier budgets slashed, what should they be funding these viable alternatives with?
There's loads of cash, the problem is it all needs to be bid for and it's quite ringfenced.
Pothole Fund, Active Travel fund, Safer Streets fund, Integrated Transport Bid... But bidding for that requires some form of forward planning, ambition and ability, none of which Tory Councils possess.
Also, some of these options like introducing CPZ, LTN etc allow councils to generate funds either through revenue (parking permits/charges) or through fines which can be put back into Highways.
There’s loads of cash, the problem is it all needs to be bid for
And with direct budgets slashed, there aren't enough people to generate the bids for the cash. It's not as simple as "just write a bid" there are many requirements and it's a huge job to write. Source: partner who is a local council officer and verging on burnout
It is this arrogant dismissal of people’s genuine concerns which cost Labour Uxbridge last week.
What cost Labour Uxbridge was the lack of 20,000 holidaying students from Brunel and other HE colleges in the area.
It is this arrogant dismissal of people’s genuine concerns which cost Labour Uxbridge last week.
I've been saying it a long time, but action on climate change and the environment needs to start at the top and work down. Instead of charging people to drive polluting cars, why not charge people driving SUVs and then use the money to fund a scrappage scheme for more polluting vehicles? You get the same result, with the added benefit of greater road safety and less congestion, without pissing off people who are just trying to get to work.
If fuel duty hadn't been frozen for 12 years people might be making different decisions about what is economic to drive anyway