Apparently Uxbridge & South Ruslip have not noticed Europe is on fire, and are offended by the Labour mayor’s anti-pollution measures.
Indeed.
I appreciate possible issues with the ULEZ - but "doing nothing" isn't an option, and I'm not aware that its detractors are offering an alternative solution to the problems of congestion and pollution, manifesting as climate change and x,000 premature deaths annually from poor air quality.
Usually the biggest issue with emission zones is that they're implemented with a lot of stick and too little carrot. If an emission zone is introduced without a corresponding investment in infrastructure for people to get around by other means then it's going to come across as just another way of screwing money out of people - usually the middle income who don't have the money to invest in low emission transport themselves (the rich will always be OK, just buy an EV for use in the emission zone, and the poor who can't afford a car in the first place are unaffected). I don't know London well enough, but has there been investment in more buses, putting in new rail services, cycle tracks, assistance for those who need a car (eg: those with disabilities)?
Usually the biggest issue with emission zones is that they're implemented with a lot of stick and too little carrot. If an emission zone is introduced without a corresponding investment in infrastructure for people to get around by other means then it's going to come across as just another way of screwing money out of people - usually the middle income who don't have the money to invest in low emission transport themselves (the rich will always be OK, just buy an EV for use in the emission zone, and the poor who can't afford a car in the first place are unaffected). I don't know London well enough, but has there been investment in more buses, putting in new rail services, cycle tracks, assistance for those who need a car (eg: those with disabilities)?
IME the same people most loudly objecting to the ULEZ are also the ones objecting to cycle tracks, bus lanes and so on, because they have no intention of using them. They want to drive, specifically, not cycle, walk, use a bus. Unfortunately that just isn't sustainable.
Usually the biggest issue with emission zones is that they're implemented with a lot of stick and too little carrot. If an emission zone is introduced without a corresponding investment in infrastructure for people to get around by other means then it's going to come across as just another way of screwing money out of people - usually the middle income who don't have the money to invest in low emission transport themselves (the rich will always be OK, just buy an EV for use in the emission zone, and the poor who can't afford a car in the first place are unaffected). I don't know London well enough, but has there been investment in more buses, putting in new rail services, cycle tracks, assistance for those who need a car (eg: those with disabilities)?
IME the same people most loudly objecting to the ULEZ are also the ones objecting to cycle tracks, bus lanes and so on, because they have no intention of using them. They want to drive, specifically, not cycle, walk, use a bus. Unfortunately that just isn't sustainable.
But, that's a problem with the people objecting not with the schemes or their implementation. If the implementation includes adequate provision of alternatives to driving then the decision to not use those (and, pay the associated costs) is one that people are free to make, if there isn't adequate provision of alternatives to driving then people are forced to continue using their car.
Usually the biggest issue with emission zones is that they're implemented with a lot of stick and too little carrot. If an emission zone is introduced without a corresponding investment in infrastructure for people to get around by other means then it's going to come across as just another way of screwing money out of people - usually the middle income who don't have the money to invest in low emission transport themselves (the rich will always be OK, just buy an EV for use in the emission zone, and the poor who can't afford a car in the first place are unaffected). I don't know London well enough, but has there been investment in more buses, putting in new rail services, cycle tracks, assistance for those who need a car (eg: those with disabilities)?
IME the same people most loudly objecting to the ULEZ are also the ones objecting to cycle tracks, bus lanes and so on, because they have no intention of using them. They want to drive, specifically, not cycle, walk, use a bus. Unfortunately that just isn't sustainable.
But, that's a problem with the people objecting not with the schemes or their implementation.
We know a family with several kids who can’t afford to change their people carrier. When the ULEZ expands they will have to pay it every time they do anything that needs a car. Khan is not a saint, good as he may be he thinks that ULEZ hasn’t made the expected amount of money. Read into that what you will but on ULEZ the man has made a mistake
Apparently Uxbridge & South Ruslip have not noticed Europe is on fire, and are offended by the Labour mayor’s anti-pollution measures.
Maybe? But firstly there is no polling on how salient it was as an issue locally, and secondly if you have tacked right you risk ending up fighting for the votes of people for which it is salient while your own natural supporters stay at home.
[And side note; expanding the ULEZ was a something Grant Schapps stipulated as a requirement of expanding TFL funding a couple of years back].
In any case it's nice that the debate on environmentalism will be framed around 500 people with SUVs in Uxbridge regardless of whether those people were even biddable by Labour. "Legitimate concerns of people who question the science" coming up next.
We know a family with several kids who can’t afford to change their people carrier. When the ULEZ expands they will have to pay it every time they do anything that needs a car. Khan is not a saint, good as he may be he thinks that ULEZ hasn’t made the expected amount of money. Read into that what you will but on ULEZ the man has made a mistake
And you would solve the air pollution problem how?
We know a family with several kids who can’t afford to change their people carrier. When the ULEZ expands they will have to pay it every time they do anything that needs a car. Khan is not a saint, good as he may be he thinks that ULEZ hasn’t made the expected amount of money. Read into that what you will but on ULEZ the man has made a mistake
And you would solve the air pollution problem how?
I think ultimately ULEZ style schemes should probably scale by both emission and value of car, with grants to people with older cars if they get rid of them or replace them.
But again; as above, if you've told your voter base that there's no hope of any positive change you are necessarily fighting for the votes of people for whom ULEZ is more likely to be salient (witness the Labour candidate for the constituency running on an anti-ULEZ ticket).
We know a family with several kids who can’t afford to change their people carrier. When the ULEZ expands they will have to pay it every time they do anything that needs a car. Khan is not a saint, good as he may be he thinks that ULEZ hasn’t made the expected amount of money. Read into that what you will but on ULEZ the man has made a mistake
Good thing the aim of ULEZs is to cut air pollution and improve the health of people living in our cities rather than just to make money. And, they definitely do that (the LEZ introduced in Glasgow a few weeks ago resulted in a massive reduction in air pollution almost immediately, despite only taking 10% of vehicles off the road). There are, of course, costs to those benefits and generally middle-income families will bear the bulk of those, because they're generally the people who can't afford to upgrade a car and because of traffic levels feel they need a car to transport children around (the irony being that if ULEZs also cut vehicle numbers then it's going to be safer for those children to walk and cycle). Unless they're adequately mitigated for, which that could include grants to upgrade vehicles for those with no alternative to drive regularly (mainly those with mobility issues) and increased provision for affordable public transport, cycle paths etc.
Like everything else, ULEZs have winners and losers. Winners are everyone who can breath easier, the NHS which doesn't spend so much resource on treating respiratory diseases, the poor who (should) get better public transport and cycle routes (and, often don't drive anyway because cars are expensive to own and use), everyone who gives up driving everywhere and gets fitter by walking and cycling more. Losers are those who can't walk or cycle and have difficulties accessing public transport, and as mentioned above middle-income families where practical issues of shopping for a family and taking kids out are much harder without a car and who can't afford to upgrade, and will thus have to pay their £10-£20 everyday that they use their car (I don't know the charges are, but expect them to be in that range).
That is not what I said. If he is expanding UZLES then he needs to do it in some of the ways mentioned. Doing it the way he is favours those who can afford to change their car and punishes those who can’t. If you live a decent distance away from the schools your kids go to, then walking is not an option. Kids under 14 are supposed to be under adult supervision.
True or not Khan saying they have not made enough money on the fines has convinced lots of people it is a fund raising scheme disguised as a green scheme.
Just going for a blanket approach makes life difficult for many families. By all means extend the zone but do it thoughtfully.
Why are children in an urban area at schools beyond walking/cycling distance? It would be understandable in some rural areas where population density is lower, but shouldn't be necessary in towns where school catchments would be much smaller. Or, alternative question, what's wrong with a bus into school? We've grown used to the convenience of a car, and in the process developed habits unheard of 30 or 40 years ago and lost our public transport infrastructure (because it's deemed "uneconomic" to support what the 20% of households without a car need to get around).
That is not what I said. If he is expanding UZLES then he needs to do it in some of the ways mentioned. Doing it the way he is favours those who can afford to change their car and punishes those who can’t. If you live a decent distance away from the schools your kids go to, then walking is not an option. Kids under 14 are supposed to be under adult supervision.
True or not Khan saying they have not made enough money on the fines has convinced lots of people it is a fund raising scheme disguised as a green scheme.
Just going for a blanket approach makes life difficult for many families. By all means extend the zone but do it thoughtfully.
Did you notice that the Tories insisted on ULEZ? Quite funny, really.
Whether or not ULEZ was to blame for Labour's *defeat* in Uxbridge, the fact remains that the tories' majority is now less than 500...hardly the fantastic result trumpeted by the former incumbent in his latest incarnation as the writer of comedy scripts...
Otherwise, the LibDems and Labour did well, although Ed Davey's call for a general election is likely to fall on deaf ears in Westminster. After all, the deck chairs on the Titanic first need to be re-stacked, before they're rearranged...
That is not what I said. If he is expanding UZLES then he needs to do it in some of the ways mentioned. Doing it the way he is favours those who can afford to change their car and punishes those who can’t. If you live a decent distance away from the schools your kids go to, then walking is not an option. Kids under 14 are supposed to be under adult supervision.
True or not Khan saying they have not made enough money on the fines has convinced lots of people it is a fund raising scheme disguised as a green scheme.
Just going for a blanket approach makes life difficult for many families. By all means extend the zone but do it thoughtfully.
Why aren't the kids taking the bus to school? Also under-14 seems absurdly old for requiring adult supervision - loads of kids round here well under 14 walk to school or get the bus without parental supervision. I started walking to and from school by myself aged 10/11. A year 7 or 8 should not have to be accompanied by a parent to go to school, surely they go into town on a Saturday by themselves for example?
The irony is that ULEZ has operated in Central London for years, and has cut pollution. But now it is being pushed out to the suburbs, which are more Tory. But I think people should be helped more financially. But guess what, you can hear Starmer imploring Khan to drop it, cos that's what the Mail commands.
My mom took me to school on my first day at school. It was my 5th birthday. I walked by myself after that. To be fair it was only about two hundred yards. However, in the month before I was 7, I needed to walk a long way or catch two buses.
It was a bad night for the Conservatives but over the 3 elections they won most votes.
I expect them to get back the seats lost, but they will still lose the general election.
Somewhat amused by the new (New) Labour MP in Selby claiming they've got loads of people who never voted Labour before. He got fewer votes than the Labour candidate in 2017 so I suspect tories staying at home had a bigger impact.
Keir junior will need to find something else to do after the general election.
I didn't realise the full irony, Boris brought in ULEZ for central London, and was elected MP for Uxbridge. Apparently, they are now rebelling against ULEZ by that nice Mr Khan. Is this nimbyism, or what?
Waking on your own to school is not encouraged in many parts of London. Crowded streets where it is easy to get taken etc. as a group fine. There are no school buses really. The kids of my friend of school age are too young to take the bus on their own. Because of where you live (sometimes how high you live in a tower) you may not be in the catchment of the nearest school.
Yes I walked to school with my sister in the suburbs of a city.
Waking on your own to school is not encouraged in many parts of London. Crowded streets where it is easy to get taken etc. as a group fine. There are no school buses really. The kids of my friend of school age are too young to take the bus on their own. Because of where you live (sometimes how high you live in a tower) you may not be in the catchment of the nearest school.
Yes I walked to school with my sister in the suburbs of a city.
Is anyone trying to fix that? Buying a ULEZ compliant car won't fix any of those societal ills.
If the thing stopping people from doing an otherwise entirely possible walk is personal safety, things have really gone west. Of course, ironically, much of the danger comes from, erm, cars... the crowded streets - because three quarters of the highway is given over to motor vehicles.
Waking on your own to school is not encouraged in many parts of London. Crowded streets where it is easy to get taken etc. as a group fine. There are no school buses really. The kids of my friend of school age are too young to take the bus on their own. Because of where you live (sometimes how high you live in a tower) you may not be in the catchment of the nearest school.
Yes I walked to school with my sister in the suburbs of a city.
Sorry but kids aren't getting snatched from the streets of Uxbridge, it just doesn't happen. It doesn't change the fact that a child in junior school should be able to catch a bus by themselves - I don't mean specific school buses, normal buses. If there's one thing London is rich in compared to the rest of the country it's buses. Are you saying no 12yo in Uxbridge gets the bus into town on a Saturday to meet their friends? I find that hard to believe.
Edited to add that when I got the bus to school in the early 00s I just got a normal local bus that went past my school, it wasn't a school bus. Locally it's common to have schoolkids use local buses that aren't school specific buses, and I would have thought where I live is pretty similar in terms of demographics to Uxbridge. And buses are much cheaper and easier to use in London!
Waking on your own to school is not encouraged in many parts of London. Crowded streets where it is easy to get taken etc. as a group fine. There are no school buses really. The kids of my friend of school age are too young to take the bus on their own. Because of where you live (sometimes how high you live in a tower) you may not be in the catchment of the nearest school.
Yes I walked to school with my sister in the suburbs of a city.
Sorry but kids aren't getting snatched from the streets of Uxbridge, it just doesn't happen. It doesn't change the fact that a child in junior school should be able to catch a bus by themselves - I don't mean specific school buses, normal buses. If there's one thing London is rich in compared to the rest of the country it's buses. Are you saying no 12yo in Uxbridge gets the bus into town on a Saturday to meet their friends? I find that hard to believe.
Edited to add that when I got the bus to school in the early 00s I just got a normal local bus that went past my school, it wasn't a school bus. Locally it's common to have schoolkids use local buses that aren't school specific buses, and I would have thought where I live is pretty similar in terms of demographics to Uxbridge. And buses are much cheaper and easier to use in London!
True enough. My daughter has been going and visiting her friend in the next village at the weekend on the regular bus since she was barely 14. Plenty of younger kids go down to the town in groups.
Notwithstanding there will be hard cases, the reality is an addiction to driving as the first, main and preferred option which we have to break.
And as I said earlier, the irony is that the biggest danger that people drive their kids to school to avoid, is all the cars.
I didn't realise the full irony, Boris brought in ULEZ for central London, and was elected MP for Uxbridge. Apparently, they are now rebelling against ULEZ by that nice Mr Khan. Is this nimbyism, or what?
The argument is that ULEZ is appropriate for Central London but not the leafy suburbs.
Correct if I am wrong but can you drive your old car as many miles as you want for one daily fine? Perhaps you should be charged according to how many miles you do.
By and large parties promising to create new taxes and increase existing ones do not fare well in democratic elections. In the midst of a cost of living crisis most electors are even more unsympathetic to new and increased imposts. Thus, although the Conservatives lost ground in Uxbridge, it appear that a sufficient proportion of the electorate saw (probably correctly) that by voting Tory they had a chance of amending the implementation of ULEZ. You can bet your bottom dollar that Starmer will seek to gain credit by forcing Khan to amend the policy.
I didn't realise the full irony, Boris brought in ULEZ for central London, and was elected MP for Uxbridge. Apparently, they are now rebelling against ULEZ by that nice Mr Khan. Is this nimbyism, or what?
The argument is that ULEZ is appropriate for Central London but not the leafy suburbs.
Correct if I am wrong but can you drive your old car as many miles as you want for one daily fine? Perhaps you should be charged according to how many miles you do.
AIUI you pay a fee of £12 for a day. If you don't pay, you then get a fine of £180.
Khan said "This is also a matter of social justice – with air pollution hitting the poorest communities the hardest. Nearly half of Londoners don’t own a car, but they are disproportionally feeling the damaging consequences polluting vehicles are causing."
In practice:
Tfl found that 60% of those who responded to its public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed, as well as 70% of outer London residents and 80% of outer London workers.
If the argument is that ULEZ penalises those who live in the zone (and, thus, pay the daily fee every day that they use a non-exempt car) then that argument applies to the current ULEZ introduced by Johnson as much as the expansion later this year. Because the current ULEZ includes a lot of residential areas. Costs to residents within a ULEZ are a valid argument against ULEZs, but not a valid argument against introducing or expanding a ULEZ.
I might be misremembering this, but the *original* (Johnson) ULEZ only applied to goods vehicles over a certain axle weight didn’t it? So while it covered residential areas it didn’t really affect residents and their private cars.
Whereas subsequently and now it’s being/has been extended to cover all but the newer private vehicles?
Khan said "This is also a matter of social justice – with air pollution hitting the poorest communities the hardest. Nearly half of Londoners don’t own a car, but they are disproportionally feeling the damaging consequences polluting vehicles are causing."
In practice:
Tfl found that 60% of those who responded to its public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed, as well as 70% of outer London residents and 80% of outer London workers.
Do . not . squeeze . the . middle .
Proportions of responses to public consultations are rarely meaningful in and of themselves, particularly when one political party is using it as a football.
Khan said "This is also a matter of social justice – with air pollution hitting the poorest communities the hardest. Nearly half of Londoners don’t own a car, but they are disproportionally feeling the damaging consequences polluting vehicles are causing."
In practice:
Tfl found that 60% of those who responded to its public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed, as well as 70% of outer London residents and 80% of outer London workers.
Do . not . squeeze . the . middle .
Proportions of responses to public consultations are rarely meaningful in and of themselves, particularly when one political party is using it as a football.
Of course, but this was by Tfl and the magic word is workers.
OK when I lived I Acton what I said was being discussed. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.
As mentioned the ULEZ was started by Boris. As I gout out last night. Khan wanted to roll it out slowly but Boris when PM threatened to withdraw funding for things if khan didn’t roll it out quickly, by now in fact. So the Cons started the ULEZ and forced its roll out. So effectively it is a Con thing not a Lab thing
If the argument is that ULEZ penalises those who live in the zone (and, thus, pay the daily fee every day that they use a non-exempt car) then that argument applies to the current ULEZ introduced by Johnson as much as the expansion later this year. Because the current ULEZ includes a lot of residential areas. Costs to residents within a ULEZ are a valid argument against ULEZs, but not a valid argument against introducing or expanding a ULEZ.
And as I said earlier, the irony is that the biggest danger that people drive their kids to school to avoid, is all the cars.
Exactly that. Having said that, I sometimes sit on a High School admissions appeal panel, and there are parents who are nervous about their 11/12yo child travelling on a school service bus. Admittedly that's more because of the fear of rowdiness and bullying.
OK when I lived I Acton what I said was being discussed. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.
As mentioned the ULEZ was started by Boris. As I gout out last night. Khan wanted to roll it out slowly but Boris when PM threatened to withdraw funding for things if khan didn’t roll it out quickly, by now in fact. So the Cons started the ULEZ and forced its roll out. So effectively it is a Con thing not a Lab thing
The Tories are naturals for doing something and saddling the blame elsewhere (cref tuition fees, Europe, etc..).
OK when I lived I Acton what I said was being discussed. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.
As mentioned the ULEZ was started by Boris. As I gout out last night. Khan wanted to roll it out slowly but Boris when PM threatened to withdraw funding for things if khan didn’t roll it out quickly, by now in fact. So the Cons started the ULEZ and forced its roll out. So effectively it is a Con thing not a Lab thing
Not in the 'burbs it isn't. Johnson might have been an idiot, but he was no fool.
Good point being made on Twitter that Labour are very incompetent in not publicizing the Tory origins of ULEZ and extension. Why are they so useless?
Whatever its party of origin, is ULEZ something that is generally perceived by the general public as a left-wing kinda thing(sorta like Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency)?
Good point being made on Twitter that Labour are very incompetent in not publicizing the Tory origins of ULEZ and extension. Why are they so useless?
It is difficult to campaign by saying, we’re in favour of this it’s a great idea, but by the way the idea came from our opponent’s party. That is sort of the worst of both words.
Good point being made on Twitter that Labour are very incompetent in not publicizing the Tory origins of ULEZ and extension. Why are they so useless?
It is difficult to campaign by saying, we’re in favour of this it’s a great idea, but by the way the idea came from our opponent’s party. That is sort of the worst of both words.
Maybe, but Starmer seems to be saying that Labour are stupid to push ULEZ, when it was a deal forced on Khan by Shapps. My wife thinks Starmer looks very nervous, maybe.
Comments
Indeed.
I appreciate possible issues with the ULEZ - but "doing nothing" isn't an option, and I'm not aware that its detractors are offering an alternative solution to the problems of congestion and pollution, manifesting as climate change and x,000 premature deaths annually from poor air quality.
IME the same people most loudly objecting to the ULEZ are also the ones objecting to cycle tracks, bus lanes and so on, because they have no intention of using them. They want to drive, specifically, not cycle, walk, use a bus. Unfortunately that just isn't sustainable.
Quite.
Maybe? But firstly there is no polling on how salient it was as an issue locally, and secondly if you have tacked right you risk ending up fighting for the votes of people for which it is salient while your own natural supporters stay at home.
[And side note; expanding the ULEZ was a something Grant Schapps stipulated as a requirement of expanding TFL funding a couple of years back].
In any case it's nice that the debate on environmentalism will be framed around 500 people with SUVs in Uxbridge regardless of whether those people were even biddable by Labour. "Legitimate concerns of people who question the science" coming up next.
And originally proposed by BoJo when Mayor.
And you would solve the air pollution problem how?
I think ultimately ULEZ style schemes should probably scale by both emission and value of car, with grants to people with older cars if they get rid of them or replace them.
But again; as above, if you've told your voter base that there's no hope of any positive change you are necessarily fighting for the votes of people for whom ULEZ is more likely to be salient (witness the Labour candidate for the constituency running on an anti-ULEZ ticket).
Like everything else, ULEZs have winners and losers. Winners are everyone who can breath easier, the NHS which doesn't spend so much resource on treating respiratory diseases, the poor who (should) get better public transport and cycle routes (and, often don't drive anyway because cars are expensive to own and use), everyone who gives up driving everywhere and gets fitter by walking and cycling more. Losers are those who can't walk or cycle and have difficulties accessing public transport, and as mentioned above middle-income families where practical issues of shopping for a family and taking kids out are much harder without a car and who can't afford to upgrade, and will thus have to pay their £10-£20 everyday that they use their car (I don't know the charges are, but expect them to be in that range).
True or not Khan saying they have not made enough money on the fines has convinced lots of people it is a fund raising scheme disguised as a green scheme.
Just going for a blanket approach makes life difficult for many families. By all means extend the zone but do it thoughtfully.
Did you notice that the Tories insisted on ULEZ? Quite funny, really.
Otherwise, the LibDems and Labour did well, although Ed Davey's call for a general election is likely to fall on deaf ears in Westminster. After all, the deck chairs on the Titanic first need to be re-stacked, before they're rearranged...
Why aren't the kids taking the bus to school? Also under-14 seems absurdly old for requiring adult supervision - loads of kids round here well under 14 walk to school or get the bus without parental supervision. I started walking to and from school by myself aged 10/11. A year 7 or 8 should not have to be accompanied by a parent to go to school, surely they go into town on a Saturday by themselves for example?
It was a bad night for the Conservatives but over the 3 elections they won most votes.
I expect them to get back the seats lost, but they will still lose the general election. Keir junior will need to find something else to do after the general election.
Yes I walked to school with my sister in the suburbs of a city.
Is anyone trying to fix that? Buying a ULEZ compliant car won't fix any of those societal ills.
If the thing stopping people from doing an otherwise entirely possible walk is personal safety, things have really gone west. Of course, ironically, much of the danger comes from, erm, cars... the crowded streets - because three quarters of the highway is given over to motor vehicles.
Does "gone west" mean something like "gone downhill" where you are? In my experience, the common phrase is "gone south".
It means gone to pot. Badly wrong. Much awry.
Sorry but kids aren't getting snatched from the streets of Uxbridge, it just doesn't happen. It doesn't change the fact that a child in junior school should be able to catch a bus by themselves - I don't mean specific school buses, normal buses. If there's one thing London is rich in compared to the rest of the country it's buses. Are you saying no 12yo in Uxbridge gets the bus into town on a Saturday to meet their friends? I find that hard to believe.
Edited to add that when I got the bus to school in the early 00s I just got a normal local bus that went past my school, it wasn't a school bus. Locally it's common to have schoolkids use local buses that aren't school specific buses, and I would have thought where I live is pretty similar in terms of demographics to Uxbridge. And buses are much cheaper and easier to use in London!
True enough. My daughter has been going and visiting her friend in the next village at the weekend on the regular bus since she was barely 14. Plenty of younger kids go down to the town in groups.
Notwithstanding there will be hard cases, the reality is an addiction to driving as the first, main and preferred option which we have to break.
And as I said earlier, the irony is that the biggest danger that people drive their kids to school to avoid, is all the cars.
The argument is that ULEZ is appropriate for Central London but not the leafy suburbs.
Correct if I am wrong but can you drive your old car as many miles as you want for one daily fine? Perhaps you should be charged according to how many miles you do.
So this is basically a Sister Souljah Moment for Starmer?
Such moments are all Starmer has, which is part of why his supporters have been so eager to portray anyone to his left as extreme.
AIUI you pay a fee of £12 for a day. If you don't pay, you then get a fine of £180.
In practice:
Do . not . squeeze . the . middle .
I might be misremembering this, but the *original* (Johnson) ULEZ only applied to goods vehicles over a certain axle weight didn’t it? So while it covered residential areas it didn’t really affect residents and their private cars.
Whereas subsequently and now it’s being/has been extended to cover all but the newer private vehicles?
Proportions of responses to public consultations are rarely meaningful in and of themselves, particularly when one political party is using it as a football.
Of course, but this was by Tfl and the magic word is workers.
As mentioned the ULEZ was started by Boris. As I gout out last night. Khan wanted to roll it out slowly but Boris when PM threatened to withdraw funding for things if khan didn’t roll it out quickly, by now in fact. So the Cons started the ULEZ and forced its roll out. So effectively it is a Con thing not a Lab thing
My head is spinning after reading this.
Exactly that. Having said that, I sometimes sit on a High School admissions appeal panel, and there are parents who are nervous about their 11/12yo child travelling on a school service bus. Admittedly that's more because of the fear of rowdiness and bullying.
The Tories are naturals for doing something and saddling the blame elsewhere (cref tuition fees, Europe, etc..).
Not in the 'burbs it isn't. Johnson might have been an idiot, but he was no fool.
Whatever its party of origin, is ULEZ something that is generally perceived by the general public as a left-wing kinda thing(sorta like Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency)?
It is difficult to campaign by saying, we’re in favour of this it’s a great idea, but by the way the idea came from our opponent’s party. That is sort of the worst of both words.
Maybe, but Starmer seems to be saying that Labour are stupid to push ULEZ, when it was a deal forced on Khan by Shapps. My wife thinks Starmer looks very nervous, maybe.