Forum menu
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
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.
No, you'd just piss off SUV drivers who would point out they're driving "clean" electric/hybrid vehicles and being penalised for just trying to get to work, why not charge the really polluting vehicles?
Whatever policy you have, you need political will and leadership to carry it through and SKS is beginning to demonstrate that he has no backbone.
I live in Sutton, the transport to get into London is great....but what if you want to go somewhere else...its crap
As for the lib demo, yeah they are making noise about delaying ulez....but they voted it in .
My 2p worth.... they should have a alternative option that vehicles could be upgraded rather than replaced....I would rather pay say £2k to upgrade my work van....rather than £15k ( because the price has gone up because of ulez) for a complaint van
No, you’d just piss off SUV drivers
That's the whole point.
"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."
Just for balance, where I live there are no train stations at all within 10 miles and the nearest bus stop is 5 miles away. I would agree that outer london has had less than the trillions spent on inner london, yes. But it has good public transport compared to most other areas, no?
And back to Starmer..
What this Uxbridge ULEZ fiasco shows is that he's going to be a terrible flip-flopping PM at the mercy of tabloid news headlines and focus groups. The only people he seems to be comfortable standing up to are those in his party who want some sort progressive change. I'm beginning to hope that he loses the election, or at least doesn't get a majority. He's going to be the most uninspiring, ineffective, unambitious, cowardly PM in history.
Dazh, what did he actually say? That ULEZ expansion is a mistake, or that how the expansion is done needed to be better? Quotes from Rayner seem to suggest the latter?
On Friday, Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner said the Uxbridge result showed that "when you don't listen to voters, you don't win elections".
Cities need clean air, she said, but she warned that people who needed new vehicles must get "proper compensation and support" so that the policy does not come "at the cost of working families".
The whole system needs looking at. If we go to the theatre in central London it's cheaper to drive and park than get the train from Epsom.
Dazh, what did he actually say?
The problem was what it always is with Starmer, he didn't really say anything. In Uxbridge his strategy of standing back and letting the tories destroy themselves backfired spectacularly. If he had come out in defence of the ULEZ and the labour mayor they probably would have won. Instead they tried to ignore the one issue on which the by-election was being fought.
It is this arrogant dismissal of people’s genuine concerns which cost Labour Uxbridge last week.
The ULEZ expansion was ordered by central government. The idea that it's a Labour policy is for the birds. You're playing right into Tory hands by making it into a party political issue.
The idea that it’s a Labour policy is for the birds. You’re playing right into Tory hands by making it into a party political issue.
So is Sadiq Khan then - he is championing the issue!
He has very much made it a personal issue which he is determined to implement.
Sadiq Khan ... he is championing the issue!
He seems to be the only one with a spine, willing to stand up for difficult issues in the interest of public health.
He has very much made it a personal issue which he is determined to implement.
Oh FFS.
He was always going to implement an expanded ULEZ, it was in his election manifesto. By voting him in, a majority of Londoners voted for it.
The original implementation date was 2024 but it's been brought forward by the Tories as a condition of their post-Covid funding package.
The ULEZ expansion was ordered by central government. The idea that it’s a Labour policy is for the birds. You’re playing right into Tory hands by making it into a party political issue.
So then what is your reason Labour didn't take the seat if it wasn't seen as party political?
Maybe have a word with Starmer then because by asking Khan to reflect on the expansion - he's doing exactly that.
Ultimately it's all pointless Starmer is not offering change or hope.
It's like debating all the possible outcomes of noughts and crosses.
Ultimately it’s all pointless Starmer is not offering change or hope.
This.
Spinelessly flip-flopping between supporting and opposing policies as the Daily Mail dictates. Waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before announcing his views on the matter.
Basically like Boris.
it was in his election manifesto.
Because the Tories told him to put it in his election manifesto?
It's nothing to do with Khan when it's unpopular but other than that it's his little baby.
https://twitter.com/Andyfews/status/1683088210778370048?t=Z7AaI5_LCcYnmmuer_GiMQ&s=19
This - if true looks exactly like Tory electioneering.
Dreadful.
(It's even got Cameron's broadest shoulders comment in it!)
Because the Tories told him to put it in his election manifesto?It’s nothing to do with Khan when it’s unpopular but other than that it’s his little baby.
Where did you get that from?!
It's in his election manifesto because he put it there. He was elected (you'd assume) on the basis of his manifesto.
The policy of extending ULEZ is that of a Labour Mayor.
The date was brought forward by the Conservative Government as part of a range of conditions put on post-Covid funding packages.
The fact that (to some people) it's unpopular isn't really a political issue. It'd be unpopular (to some people) if it *wasn't* extended. Where Starmer screwed up was putting up an anti-ULEZ candidate for the borough and not combating some of the misinformation circulating about it - there was some resident moaning about the charge even though they had a compliant car so there was loads of weaponised mis/dis information being put out about it.
@butcher Which is the exact opposite of his position on the Silvertown Tunnel?
He was elected (you’d assume) on the basis of his manifesto.
Well it's always nice to see a right-wing politician like Sadiq Khan stick to election pledges, the usual excuse is that "circumstances" have changed. However the worse cost of living crises in living memory doesn't seem to be a problem.
Most people who are opposed to the ulez expansion argue that now is not the right time. That is certainly a major concern in the LibDem case against it, as that excellent press release by Sutton council points out.
No one seems to be discussing the financial consequences this will have on lower income households who tend to own older cars and are currently struggling with increasing fuel and food prices. Why?
You might feel that it is fine to self-righteously tell them to stop moaning and go and buy a new car, but don't be surprised if when the time comes they don't vote the way you would like them to.
Sadiq Khan has put restrictions on the use of freedom passes in London. Intially they were introduced during the pandemic to allow greater accessibility for essential workers, now after the pandemic he has made it permanent to save money, despite a drop in passenger numbers post pandemic. Free transport has been shown to increase public transport use, restricting access won't increase its use.
Joined up thinking would help the situation, not trying to shift the financial burden onto people who you want to use public transport.
No one seems to be discussing the financial consequences this will have on lower income households who tend to own older cars and are currently struggling with increasing fuel and food prices.
On the one hand close to 50% in the London area don't own a car and then the poorer people own a car. Which is it?
If an employer insisted I needed a car for a job and wouldn't provide one, I would be taking my labour elsewhere. There's no point working at a job that has a personal financial penalty for being in that job. The civil service is discovering this in spades, they are unable to retain London staff despite the salary uplift because the costs of living close to or getting to the office outweigh the uplift.
If an employer insisted I needed a car for a job and wouldn’t provide one, I would be taking my labour elsewhere. There’s no point working at a job that has a personal financial penalty for being in that job.
You've just described most home care workers and community health care workers.
If they have to take their labour elsewhere it will have to be out of the caring professions.
On the one hand close to 50% in the London area don’t own a car and then the poorer people own a car. Which is it?
Why do seem to think that it can't be both?
The figures are from Transport for London, is there any reason to doubt them?
Apologies for the long URL and I can't figure out how to do a direct link but if you click on the first link and look at the stuff shaded in blue you will see the details:
Well, now that Starmer has nailed his colours to the mast as slightly to the right of David Cameron and decided to jump on the anti-environment bandwagon, it’s pretty clear that Labour will not be getting my vote in the next general election.
Flip- flopping, spineless, and reactionist.
You’ve just described most home care workers and community health care workers.
NHS community workers can have cars supplied if they want - either pool cars or leased thru the NHS
So what we are saying is that some pollution is acceptable the only issue is what level of pollution is acceptable.
That's how statutory limits work. This is basic stuff, Ernie.
and decided to jump on the anti-environment bandwagon
Have a read of this
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence/
Imperial College doesn't have a political axe to grind.
They found that, compared to the overall decrease in London’s air pollution levels, the ULEZ caused only small improvements in air quality in the weeks following its start date: an average reduction of less than 3 per cent for nitrogen dioxide concentrations, and insignificant effects on ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations.
They also found that the biggest improvements in air quality in London in fact took place before the ULEZ was introduced in 2019.
The primary reason for the ulez expansion is revenue, not pollution reduction. The pandemic caused a catastrophic financial crisis for Transport for London, consequentially Sadiq Khan approached central government for financial support.
In response the government asked Sadiq Khan what steps he would take to ensure that TfL would be financially sustainable in the future. Sadiq Khan proposed the expansion of the ulez to generate revenue for TfL. The government agreed and said that they would provide financial support for TfL if he expanded the ulez.
The proposition was always going to appeal to a Tory government - a Labour mayor of a city which they don't control squeezing money from low income individuals/households (the very people that are likely to vote Labour) because they can't afford a new car/van, during a cost of living crises, to fund his spending. And of course Sadiq Khan cannot afford to allow TfL collapse.
Last year the ulez in London generated more than £224million. I don't know how much the massively expanded ulez will generate but we are talking huge amounts, which is what this is really all about, and maybe a couple of percent reduction in nitrogen dioxide, which this isn't really about.
That’s how statutory limits work. This is basic stuff, Ernie.
Yeah and my point is that it's a judgement call.
There is not a necessarily a right or wrong, just what is acceptable.
The primary reason for the ulez expansion is revenue, not pollution reduction.
I don’t think you can draw that conclusion from the study.
1. ULEZ doesn’t actually affect that many vehicles, particularly so in central London, so initial impact will be limited.
2. Some of the most polluting vehicles are exempt.
3. I see no reason why owners of polluting vehicles shouldn’t subsidise TFL instead of taxpayers outside of London.
4. Many vehicles were changed in anticipation of ULEZ introduction.
NHS community workers can have cars supplied if they want – either pool cars or leased thru the NHS
Some, not all, NHS Trusts offer pool cars.
I work for a large mental health trust with a significant proportion of us being community based and there is no pool car option; it was dropped a number of years ago.
The 2 acute trusts that operate in my local area also have no pool car option.
I'm confident that there are other trusts in the UK that don't either but I only know of those local to me.
We can salary sacrifice for a lease car but it's not an attractive option for everyone, for example if you already own a car, you're a Band 2 HSW on £21k per annum and your budgets are already tight, or you're not intending to stay with your team for a long time.
Plus the salary sacrifice reduces your pension contributions and your final pension on retirement.
We are really struggling to recruit to the community as people would rather be ward based as they will be paid more (unsocial hours) and have reduced costs; we are also steadily losing staff back to based jobs for the same financial reasons.
Yeah and my point is that it’s a judgement call.
By those setting the statutory limits. Which is not the people responsible for implementing air quality action plans and low emission zones.