|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jul 21, 2023 8:23:43 GMT
ULEZ extension was a classic example. Without a scrappage scheme, poorer voters faced a hammer blow. I', not blaming Labour so much here - this is an issue where devolved powers grind up against national policy, and central and regional government needed to work together and didn't. With a proper support package, I doubt this would have been such an issue, but the lesson is that environmental gains must be made in the context of wholesale economic and social justice. I think that's a positive lesson to learn. , sorry but I tend to disagree with you on this as my children currently are having to put up with an unnecessary level of pollution which is likely to impact their health. And if you think politicians will take the lesson you think they should from this and adopt those policies, I think you will find yourself deeply disappointed. What is much more likely is that environmental issues will again become less of a priority and parties will refrain from taking the action that needs to be done. We are struggling to implement even the most basic of schemes. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,656
|
Post by steve on Jul 21, 2023 8:25:00 GMT
And here's the big one
Nunnery Ward
Electorate
Ballot Papers
Issued
Spoiled
Papers
Turnout
6644
1759 3
26.48%
Candidate
Party
Votes
Result
Butler
Scott
Liberal Democrat
102
-
Carney
David Paul
Independent
88 -
Ditta
Allah
Conservative Party
518 -
Willmore
Elaine Grace
Labour Party
1048
ELECTED
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 21, 2023 8:25:50 GMT
Ulez playing badly in outer London, oddly enough the well healed residents of Ruislip aren't remotely likely to have vehicles that aren't compliant but the power of the right wing press in action.Still a reasonable swing to Labour in a city where they're already strong. A historic win for Labour in Selby , is this Labour's biggest swing in a by election? That's my being nice to Labour bit out of the way. Somerton and Frome Liberal Democrats: 21,187 Tories: 10,179 Labour: 1,009 Independent: 635 You missed out Green and Reform pushing Lab into 5th. Probably doesn't mean too much, but Green 10% in S&F and 5% in S&A in a squeeze type of election suggests a core vote for them, although higher turnouts at a General Election may reduce these percentages as seems like any Green voters would have voted in these ones. Also General Election is more meaningful so perhaps more reason to vote tactically then? Green and Reform (Reclaim) both above LD in Selby and Uxbridge as well so of some interest that their core votes seem to be higher than Lab and LD, and Lab and LD voters more willing to vote tactically. Greens are not consistently above 5% though but it becomes an issue to Labour (and LD) if they do start registering that everywhere and their lower vote in Uxbridge was higher than the difference between Con and Lab in the same way that in 2019 some Lab seats were lost because of the remain vote edging up LD and Green. Yes depressing in Uxbridge, and ULEZ was flagged in advance by political commentators as being an issue that gave Tories some hope. It's not just about Tory voters either. Burham in Greater Manchester has been faffing around with a low emission zone because of objections from ancient camper van owners and ice cream vans. He has been trying to blame the government for not funding it, which might be true, but he could still push it through given parts of Greater Manchester continue to exceed clean air limits. A number of years ago solidly left wing Greater Manchester residents had a referendum on a congestion charge for the city centre and a very generous package for public transport in exchange and it was rejected, despite the fact that very few people would have been hit by a congestion charge very often. Makes you despair at people's choice which aren't even necessarily based on self interest if they stopped to think that it wouldn't affect them in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 21, 2023 8:29:06 GMT
The venerable Sir John Curtice has opined. He thinks we're looking in the wrong place for the real lessons from yesterday's by-election results if we allow our gaze to linger on Uxbridge. The ability and willingness of voters to coalesce, as they did in Somerton and Selby, to help the candidate best placed to defeat the Tory, is of far more long term electoral significance. I think he's right. FPTP was royally gamed by non-Tory voters yesterday, in both the South West and North:- www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-labour-byelection-results-uxbridge-selby-b2379395.html |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 21, 2023 8:33:05 GMT
I'm a bit surprised at all the posters confidently asserting that it was ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge when presumably most of them have no more local knowledge than I do. Interesting to read RAF 's take. I also have to admit to being puzzled that ULEZ would be such a big issue. My city introduced one fairly recently and when the warning signs went up I looked up the charging criteria for private cars. From the 'ultra' bit I was rather expecting that only hybrids, electric vehicles and maybe very modern low-emission petrol vehicles would be exempt, so I was pleasantly surprised - from a financial perspective - to discover that my car was very comfortably exempt. In fact petrol vehicles registered from 2006 onwards are usually exempt, diesels from Sept 2015 onwards. I guess there are a fair few dirty, oldish diesels on the road, but might this be a case of a party succeeding in convincing people that they'll take a financial hit when they won't (the classical example being Osborne's manufactured hoo-ha about inheritance tax)? --- With my green hat on (which allows me to assert that the principle of reducing air pollution is sound, so people should be prepared to accept some inconvenience, even if I know that in practice they aren't), I can't helping asking whether it would be so very costly to trade in a non-exempt diesel for a petrol vehicle of a similar age, even allowing for a difference in fuel costs? How far would an Uxbridge resident have to go to escape the price depression caused by the ULEZ?
, I live in outer London, and it is very much an issue atm, largely due to the fact the Tories are exploiting it rather than supporting it. Not all Tories are happy with this, but opposition to ULEZ is going to be a centre plank of the Tory campaign in the Mayoral election next year. One point about the ULEZ extension I have picked up on is that because the London Mayor has installed the ULEZ cameras on traffic lights that TfL controls i.e. those on main "A" roads, a side-effect of extending ULEZ will be to encourage rat-running through residential roads. And modern internal combustion cars and vans although less polluting than older cars are not zero-polluting. For outer London Boroughs like Harrow where I live there is a considerable amount of traffic across the Greater London boundary and those who live outside Greater London get no scrappage scheme at all. This is particularly upsetting people in Watford who have to pay into TfL (because the London Overground goes out to Watford Junction station) but are not eligible for the scrappage scheme. There are many people in outer London who see the ULEZ extension purely as a money-making scheme to address the black hole in TfL finances since covid. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,406
|
Post by neilj on Jul 21, 2023 8:38:04 GMT
The venerable Sir John Curtice has opined. He thinks we're looking in the wrong place for the real lessons from yesterday's by-election results if we allow our gaze to linger on Uxbridge. The ability and willingness of voters to coalesce, as they did in Somerton and Selby, to help the candidate best placed to defeat the Tory, is of far more long term electoral significance. I think he's right. FPTP was royally gamed by non-Tory voters yesterday, in both the South West and North:- www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-labour-byelection-results-uxbridge-selby-b2379395.htmlAgree, John Curtice says that across all three by elections the average drop in Tory support is 21% and that these by elections are consistent with the depressing messages of the opinion polls that the Tories are a long way behind |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jul 21, 2023 8:38:05 GMT
The result in Uxbridge, if it was a result of decision to extend ULEZ, is extremely depressing for anyone who is serious about taking action on the environment. The willingness of the Tories to exploit the issues rather than come to a consensus on such policies, will in effect take us back about a decade. Labour, who are showing no appetite to taking principled stands, are now likely to backtrack on the issue. Future generations will curse us. So the less-well-off should be the ones to pay for green policies? This was an own-goal by Labour, though judging by Angela Rayner's comments this morning she gets it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by Danny on Jul 21, 2023 8:42:42 GMT
Old (non-exempt) diesels probably aren't worth very much and I'd prefer a policy that pushes for a bigger shift than just to a slightly less emitting car but the overall point is that is very disappointing that the case for 'doing something' about car emissions is likely to take a hit due to a few hundred votes in one mid-term by-election You should be allowing for the fact there is little point getting someone to replace an old diesel when they only ever drive it 5 miles a week. Whereas even a modern taxi might produce vastly more pollution. Especially if such a car is used for longer distances already, such as trips out of london. It ought to be the total emissions we are seeking to cut, not concentrating on particular cars. Anyone might think what we are really trying to do is force people to scrap old cars which are hardly used and replace them with new ones instead. Thereby helping the profits of car producers. Similarly, building nuclear power to rplace intermittent use of gas generation isnt saving much in pollution but handing vast profits to Rolls Royce and EDF. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jul 21, 2023 8:48:26 GMT
The result in Uxbridge, if it was a result of decision to extend ULEZ, is extremely depressing for anyone who is serious about taking action on the environment. The willingness of the Tories to exploit the issues rather than come to a consensus on such policies, will in effect take us back about a decade. Labour, who are showing no appetite to taking principled stands, are now likely to backtrack on the issue. Future generations will curse us. So the less-well-off should be the ones to pay for green policies? This was an own-goal by Labour, though judging by Angela Rayner's comments this morning she gets it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by Danny on Jul 21, 2023 8:49:26 GMT
Danny "You know youre getting old when you have sex with people young enough to be your grandchild. Who are of course plainly adults themselves." Is there something you wanted to share with us? I do wonder whether politicians understand real people? Or whether they just pretend they dont. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 21, 2023 8:50:13 GMT
I'm a bit surprised at all the posters confidently asserting that it was ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge when presumably most of them have no more local knowledge than I do. Interesting to read RAF 's take. I also have to admit to being puzzled that ULEZ would be such a big issue. My city introduced one fairly recently and when the warning signs went up I looked up the charging criteria for private cars. From the 'ultra' bit I was rather expecting that only hybrids, electric vehicles and maybe very modern low-emission petrol vehicles would be exempt, so I was pleasantly surprised - from a financial perspective - to discover that my car was very comfortably exempt. In fact petrol vehicles registered from 2006 onwards are usually exempt, diesels from Sept 2015 onwards. I guess there are a fair few dirty, oldish diesels on the road, but might this be a case of a party succeeding in convincing people that they'll take a financial hit when they won't (the classical example being Osborne's manufactured hoo-ha about inheritance tax)? --- With my green hat on (which allows me to assert that the principle of reducing air pollution is sound, so people should be prepared to accept some inconvenience, even if I know that in practice they aren't), I can't helping asking whether it would be so very costly to trade in a non-exempt diesel for a petrol vehicle of a similar age, even allowing for a difference in fuel costs? How far would an Uxbridge resident have to go to escape the price depression caused by the ULEZ?
, I live in outer London, and it is very much an issue atm, largely due to the fact the Tories are exploiting it rather than supporting it. Not all Tories are happy with this, but opposition to ULEZ is going to be a centre plank of the Tory campaign in the Mayoral election next year. I didn't support CON in LE'23 due them using ULEZ and other NIMBY issues in campaigning (although they were out-NIMBYed by Green/other NIMBYs in some wards) Hopefully Khan and London LAB can do the maths and have seen ULEZ polling (ie losing a few votes in outer London is a cheap price to pay for ensuring they win high % in inner London and the plurality vote overall) London Mayor 2024 will be FPTP and if some 'lean LAB' folks vote Green then it's not impossible CON win on a split vote. For CON then a 'win's a win' and winning on say 32% with a split vote will be something they'd be as happy about as winning 50.1% of the vote. TBC but with U&SR by-election out of the way then maybe Starmer does an 'O-turn' and remembers he is/was long supportive of ULEZ and tackling climate change and pollution. Surely keeping London Mayor (even if Khan is not a Starmer sock puppet) and ensuring Greens are squeezed into voting LAB across the country is more important than a few seats in Outer London? Heaven forbid Starmer actually makes the +ve case for ULEZ, 'charge per mile' or other ways to tackle emissions and Reeves stops pretending there is no money to fund some 'carrots' to help with the taxation stick. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jul 21, 2023 8:50:15 GMT
crossbat11 Ouch! That's harsh for an inadvertent incursion. Not having any need to worry I have been assuming that the charging mechanism allowed for post-incursion payments within a reasonable timeframe, so that people making one-off journeys or accidentally straying into one only pay the standard fee, provided they stump up promptly. Your experience makes it easy to understand why people might be opposed. Word-of-mouth stories like yours would make a lot of people nervous, since a 90 quid fine would be a devastating financial blow for many. I'm not qualified to comment on the role ULEZ did or didn't play in Lab failing to gain the seat, I was just asking whether the Cons were scaremongering or trying to capitalise on a policy that does have signficant financial implications for significant numbers of voters in the area. I would also hate to see the anti-environment lobby succeed in convincing people that the lesson of the result is that green policies cost votes if there were other factors that made the seat difficult for Lab to win.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by Danny on Jul 21, 2023 8:51:34 GMT
I don't think that Labour would ever have won Copeland under Corbyn due to the nuclear industry's importance to Cumbria. indeed. Its a big boost to not need lighting at night because it all glows in the dark. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 21, 2023 8:54:29 GMT
ULEZ extension was a classic example. Without a scrappage scheme, poorer voters faced a hammer blow. I', not blaming Labour so much here - this is an issue where devolved powers grind up against national policy, and central and regional government needed to work together and didn't. With a proper support package, I doubt this would have been such an issue, but the lesson is that environmental gains must be made in the context of wholesale economic and social justice. I think that's a positive lesson to learn. , sorry but I tend to disagree with you on this as my children currently are having to put up with an unnecessary level of pollution which is likely to impact their health. And if you think politicians will take the lesson you think they should from this and adopt those policies, I think you will find yourself deeply disappointed. What is much more likely is that environmental issues will again become less of a priority and parties will refrain from taking the action that needs to be done. We are struggling to implement even the most basic of schemes.Yes ULEZ should be extended but, if you look at this BBC article it's not simple for people in the extended zone to swap their cars and vans for less-polluting ones: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64798395The cost of second-hand cars has also risen.
According to data from AutoTrader, the median price of a compliant ULEZ vehicle in 2021 was £12,989. This has now risen to £18,295.
Its analysis also shows in February there were 43,359 ULEZ-compliant cars for sale in London with an average cost of £15,000 and £19,991 for petrol and diesel respectively.
Only about 5,000 of these compliant cars are for sale under £5,000.
Within a 100-mile radius of London, there are about 90,000 compliant petrol cars, 8,000 of which cost under £5,000.
The mayor of London says there are 200,000 non-compliant vehicles on the road. It is estimated that 30,000 of those vehicles are vans.
AutoTrader data shows there are only 5,181 vans for sale across London and the South-east and 23,803 across the UK that are ULEZ compliant.
So it is true that compared with a year ago it will be harder for some people to replace their vehicles and also that there is a shortage of affordable cars and compliant second-hand vans.Anyone wanting to replace their non-compliant vehicle will have to pay over £5k more on average for it than they did in 2021. This is why a generous scrappage scheme is so important. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jul 21, 2023 8:55:43 GMT
So the less-well-off should be the ones to pay for green policies? This was an own-goal by Labour, though judging by Angela Rayner's comments this morning she gets it. Of course not, just that the less well off shouldn't bear the brunt of the cost. All policies at this time need to take into account the cost-of-living crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jul 21, 2023 8:56:43 GMT
So the less-well-off should be the ones to pay for green policies? This was an own-goal by Labour, though judging by Angela Rayner's comments this morning she gets it. Its a balancing act. One I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions on. But, I could see why those (those that actually do vote) who are poor/struggling would vote for anyone non ULEZ. Though not convinced Uxbridge was about ULEZ. Some people are just Tories and don't seem to mind how corrupt and low this present lot are, maybe they've made a mint out of them or like policies that hit the poorest/disabled hardest. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,406
|
Post by neilj on Jul 21, 2023 8:57:07 GMT
The tory Chairman Greg Hands seemed to think that Labour losing votes in Somerton and libdems in Selby was a good sign for the tories
In reality of course the precise opposite is true, people are voting tactically to get rid of the Tories
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 21, 2023 8:59:49 GMT
So the less-well-off should be the ones to pay for green policies? This was an own-goal by Labour, though judging by Angela Rayner's comments this morning she gets it. Some targeted help could be given (and IIRC is given in other polities). EG If you're a care worker who has to use a car then you can get a longer exemption and/or targeted help to switch to a less polluting vehicle. I'm afraid the excuse that it will hit the poorest the hardest is the kind of nonsense that CON would come up to persuade ignorant people to vote for them. That 'excuse' lacks any awareness of the issues and how other polities have dealt with the implementation side. FWIW then from the 'cost side' then 'do nothing' is already costing an estimated £1.4-3.7billion per year and obviously the 'human' cost to health, notably children's health, is something you'd hope politicians and any decent human being would care about.
"Air pollution has a negative effect on a number of different aspects of human health. In London, 9,400 premature deaths are attributed to poor air quality and a cost of between £1.4 and £3.7 billion a year to the health service"www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/33227#* I might not agree with everything Khan says/does but overall I think he's been a very good Mayor and I very much hope he is re-elected next year. London isn't my polity but I live just outside the arbitrary line drawn on a map so what happens in London does impact me. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,656
|
Post by steve on Jul 21, 2023 9:01:44 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by Danny on Jul 21, 2023 9:04:55 GMT
All this fuss about elections, but there was a maybe important story today. India is banning rice exports. This comes after Russia announced a ban on Ukrainian grain exports.
Behind the Indian decision is poor harvests, but these may not be the only ones. Price rises ahead, and of course starvation for some.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,656
|
Post by steve on Jul 21, 2023 9:05:57 GMT
Selby and Ainsty with a 24% swing, was seat 237th on Labour's target list.
Somerton and Frome with a 29% swing was 57th on Lib Dems target list.
Sunakered claims victory!
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jul 21, 2023 9:17:58 GMT
The poorest are the ones who suffer most from pollution and degradation of the environment. So you suggest we do nothing? At least Khan is trying to do something. Of course not, just that the less well off shouldn't bear the brunt of the cost. All policies at this time need to take into account the cost-of-living crisis.
Again, what else do you think Khan should do given the authority and resources he currently has? |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,130
|
Post by domjg on Jul 21, 2023 9:20:05 GMT
The poorest are the ones who suffer most from pollution and degradation of the environment. So you suggest we do nothing? At least Khan is trying to do something. Its a balancing act. One I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions on. But, I could see why those (those that actually do vote) who are poor/struggling would vote for anyone non ULEZ. Though not convinced Uxbridge was about ULEZ. Some people are just Tories and don't seem to mind how corrupt and low this present lot are, maybe they've made a mint out of them or like policies that hit the poorest/disabled hardest. I spent the first part of my childhood in this kind of irredeemably tory outer London region (Spelthorne) and still have wider family there. In many ways the culture and attitudes of a lot of people there are, to be blunt, not very nice. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jul 21, 2023 9:21:25 GMT
One point about the ULEZ extension I have picked up on is that because the London Mayor has installed the ULEZ cameras on traffic lights that TfL controls i.e. those on main "A" roads, a side-effect of extending ULEZ will be to encourage rat-running through residential roads. And modern internal combustion cars and vans although less polluting than older cars are not zero-polluting. Local governments seem prone to remarkable stupidity about stuff like this (I'm generalising wildly from a sample of two here,* but hey, that's all the data I have). It's not as if any modelling or traffic surveys are required to appreciate that this was a likely consequence. *The other example being the idiocies my local council has perpetrated during its ongoing endeavours to create 'active neighbourhoods'. I'll spare everyone the tedious details. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 21, 2023 9:27:57 GMT
jib- Lib Dems still breaking election promises (smiley). In his timeline the £1k donation to Greens is now just going to donate £50 to XR because there's no money left:
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,130
|
Post by domjg on Jul 21, 2023 9:34:33 GMT
If there's one good thing to come out of the Uxbridge result it may at least be a brake on the loc complacency that I think has been developing recently. To be a jolting reminder that progressive unity is very important.
We've seen plenty of recent examples on here of how we can start turning on each other when we thought we were standing over the corpse of the Tory party (reminded me of the film 'The death of Stalin'). Well, there's still life in the zombie so be vigilant!
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 21, 2023 9:38:11 GMT
One point about the ULEZ extension I have picked up on is that because the London Mayor has installed the ULEZ cameras on traffic lights that TfL controls i.e. those on main "A" roads, a side-effect of extending ULEZ will be to encourage rat-running through residential roads. And modern internal combustion cars and vans although less polluting than older cars are not zero-polluting. Local governments seem prone to remarkable stupidity about stuff like this (I'm generalising wildly from a sample of two here,* but hey, that's all the data I have). It's not as if any modelling or traffic surveys are required to appreciate that this was a likely consequence. *The other example being the idiocies my local council has perpetrated during its ongoing endeavours to create 'active neighbourhoods'. I'll spare everyone the tedious details. Call me a cynic but 'teething issues' can be fixed**. I wonder if LDEM's opposition is based more about an awareness of the kind of seats that LDEM hold/could win - noting that a lot of their limited geographic appeal is in Outer-London and 'commuter towns' around London. As we saw in the coalition and the 'let everyone in' period towards the end of HoC 17-19 then LDEM's will do anything for a few more MPs and the chance of some red briefcases. ** Ultimately the whole country is likely to move to 'charge per mile' with the charge being based on a number of factors and some of the revenue used to help those that need help adjusting. Countries like Singapore have operated an 'electronic road pricing' scheme since 1998 - well before the uptake of modern GPS tracking systems and smart phones (ie anyone adopting 'charge per mile' now would find it a lot easier to do so than Singapore back in 1998). Some la-la-libertarians might express faux outrage about being 'tracked' for their car usage*** but FFS we need to tackle these issues, not simply find excuses for more 'dither+delay'.
Raising cash from car-restricting policies: What can London learn from Singapore?www.centreforcities.org/blog/what-can-london-learn-from-singapore-transport/*** Noting that 'black boxes' to track driving are common for new drivers but IIRC they are not compulsory? Perhaps operate a discount scheme for uptake in the early years and really turn up the ££ pain with fines for the dinosaurs - adding in an 'annual charge' for dinosaurs refusing to adapt that could easily be added to annual Vehicle Tax. Carrots + sticks. You're not 'forced' to adapt but you'll find it increasingly expenses to remain a climate denying dinosaur making up excuses about why we shouldn't do what other polities are already doing. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,406
|
Post by neilj on Jul 21, 2023 9:39:23 GMT
It occurred to me this morning that the ULEZ issue highlights wider dilemmas for Starmer/Labour
For example some think plans to ban all new oil extraction approvals shows Starmer is in the pay of just stop oil
But others think him not stopping extraction for existing approvals show he is not doing enough on the environment
You can apply the same argument to the new green deal, ramping up spending to £28b is seen by same as something we can't afford. Others that it is a betrayal of the earlier commitment to start with £28b a year
Labours plans for making planning approval for onshore wind and new housing much easier I think is probably less divisive (atleast in the abstract)
Labour’s plan for scrapping vat exemptions for private schools is seen by some as socialist class warfare, but I suspect for most it's either not an important issue or they support it
Listening to Radio 4 this morning Rees-mogg saying people needed to vote tory to keep Socialist Starmer out. While people on the left call him a red tory
In summary I can understand a nervousness in being too bold, but hope that as we get closer to the election they do build on their existing agenda. I certainly think scrapping the two child cap is something that a good argument can be made for
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 21, 2023 9:45:09 GMT
athena The non-payment of charge fines are pretty steep, but I should have been more aware of where I was driving. Birmingham city centre implemented an emission zone a few years ago and, in the early days, the signage was poor and it was possible, as I once did, to drift through the old roads of habit (my muscle memory stored way to Villa Park) and overlook entering the zone and then incur, weeks later, the big non-payment fine. It was my weak excuse in London too in early June. Of course, the solution would be to get rid of my offending and polluting car which, if all goes to plan, I intend to do. The improvement in air quality in Birmingham city centre since the emission zone was introduced has been remarkable. Like all these measures and policies that go to enhance the common good, we should concentrate on the bigger picture and eschew short-term financial pain. Of course, that's easy to do if you're relatively affluent like me but rather more difficult if you don't have the means and wherewithal to pay the charges and buy new vehicles. Maybe we should look to help people with those issues. The Tory campaign in Uxbridge, as you say, exploited these concerns no doubt. www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/article/1114/clean_air_zone_sees_city_centre_air_quality_improve_in_its_first_year#:~:text=This%20reduction%20in%20the%20most,six%20months%20of%20the%20scheme. P.S. I still treasure the photograph that the Birmingham Zone Enforcement people sent me as evidence when they were issuing me with the FPN. Myself driving, my eldest son in the passenger seat and my mate in the rear seats. All of us bedecked in Villa colours, blithely unaware of what was to come (a 1-1 draw with Brentford, if I remember rightly.) |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jul 21, 2023 9:52:04 GMT
shevii 'A number of years ago solidly left wing Greater Manchester residents had a referendum on a congestion charge for the city centre and a very generous package for public transport in exchange and it was rejected, despite the fact that very few people would have been hit by a congestion charge very often. Makes you despair at people's choice which aren't even necessarily based on self interest if they stopped to think that it wouldn't affect them in any way.' leftieliberal 'There are many people in outer London who see the ULEZ extension purely as a money-making scheme to address the black hole in TfL finances since covid.' lululemonmustdobetter '...my children currently are having to put up with an unnecessary level of pollution which is likely to impact their health.' The evidence of the harms caused by air pollution is very clear and although we know that most people tend to find personal stories more compelling, I've certainly read plenty of personal accounts that reinforce the hard data. So the material for a public information campaign to persuade people of the benefits of pollution-reducing measures is there. But is it being used? I'd estimate that I live within 4km of the ULEZ boundary near me, but I didn't get any leaflet through my door expounding the benefits, with some heart-warming stories of children whose asthma has cleared up, exmpt vehicles, examples of how to take advantage of scrappage schemes etc. I'm sure some of this info is available if you go to a website, but that requires people to be motivated to seek the information. You can't scan a QR code from your car... shevii - are you able to you comment on the referendum campaign in Manchester? Did Burnham do a good job of communicating the case for a congestion charge?
|
|
