16-JUL 2023 : LAB: 46% / CON: 26% / LDEM: 11% / REF: 6%

[crossbat11]

Jul 21, 2023 17:19:29 GMT @fecklessmiser said:

Jul 21, 2023 16:35:23 GMT steve said:

graham

It's Goodwins law time
Try to control yourself its bizarre and rather sad hyperbole to compare Blair with Hitler.

It’s pathetically distasteful.

The level of hatred expressed by some in their posting is getting borderline disturbing.

I remember when this site was far more light hearted and recreational than it seems to be now. With a much more diverse population of contributors too.

I sense it's slowly going down the plughole and is becoming a sounding board for a few cranks and obsessives.

Some very honourable exceptions, who probably know who they are, but it's getting very difficult now to steer around the obsessives to get to them.

[graham]

Jul 21, 2023 18:22:14 GMT Dave said:

Jul 21, 2023 12:15:42 GMT graham said:

No - but I do cheer the defeat of smug NeoTories such as Starmer and Blair.

By being happy that actual Tories won?

You said hahaha to a Tories win over what you (incorrectly, and far too simplistically, black-and-whitely) describe as neo-Tories.

I think you’d count yourself as left of centre. I know it’s an old and frankly tedious argument on here, but if you’re ok with an actual Tory win over Labour as you seem to be, and consider yourself loc then you’re either detached from the reality of people’s lives who you must know Labour will seek to improve more than the Tories ever, ever, EVER, will, or you’re ideologically pure in your own mind so perfection trumps gradual/ any improvement in people’s lives in the here and now, OR, and I wonder how many this applies to, you’re doing ok yourself, so who wins doesn’t really matter to you and you can afford the luxury of being happy of being ‘pure’ despite the prospect of another Tory government not affecting your world.

You said the other day you’d vote green or not vote at all. Had you lived in Uxbridge, you’d have contributed to a Tory win. Are you happy with that? Genuine question, because you seem to be because I’m loc and would never be happy if I’d had my chance to evict a Tory and failed to take it.

Anyway, I might go into details on this seat. I’ve lived there. I work there now. It’s unusual for London. I thought we’d (Labour - I know who I am) win but honestly am not surprised at the narrow loss.

That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail  on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued  despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak.

[domjg]

Jul 21, 2023 17:11:22 GMT Rafwan said:

pjw1961

Are you saying that Johnson/truss were consequence of Corbyn’s leadership?

The whole tory populist takeover was greatly assisted by Corbyn's leadership yes. Plenty of other factors as well though.

[crossbat11]

Jul 21, 2023 18:45:18 GMT graham said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:22:14 GMT Dave said:

By being happy that actual Tories won?

You said hahaha to a Tories win over what you (incorrectly, and far too simplistically, black-and-whitely) describe as neo-Tories.

I think you’d count yourself as left of centre. I know it’s an old and frankly tedious argument on here, but if you’re ok with an actual Tory win over Labour as you seem to be, and consider yourself loc then you’re either detached from the reality of people’s lives who you must know Labour will seek to improve more than the Tories ever, ever, EVER, will, or you’re ideologically pure in your own mind so perfection trumps gradual/ any improvement in people’s lives in the here and now, OR, and I wonder how many this applies to, you’re doing ok yourself, so who wins doesn’t really matter to you and you can afford the luxury of being happy of being ‘pure’ despite the prospect of another Tory government not affecting your world.

You said the other day you’d vote green or not vote at all. Had you lived in Uxbridge, you’d have contributed to a Tory win. Are you happy with that? Genuine question, because you seem to be because I’m loc and would never be happy if I’d had my chance to evict a Tory and failed to take it.

Anyway, I might go into details on this seat. I’ve lived there. I work there now. It’s unusual for London. I thought we’d (Labour - I know who I am) win but honestly am not surprised at the narrow loss.

That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail  on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued  despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak.

I refer you to my previous post. Nobody is "evil" in current British politics. Why are you attaching these sorts of descriptions to democratically elected politicians? We may strongly disapprove of, and disagree with, politicians whose policies and beliefs differ to ours, but you keep invoking the language of US religious extremists, preachers and demagogues to people and events that don't merit your hyperbolic and morally loaded descriptions.

Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are evil, and to describe them as such is to rob the word of its true meaning and application.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2023 18:35:14 GMT crossbat11 said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:29:10 GMT graham said:

Which is why it would have made sense for Labour to have campaigned in the Frome part of the seat. I fail to see why they failed to do so - particularly as the final result was never in real doubt.

Maybe the "result was never in real doubt" because Labour declined to campaign seriously and, by doing so, sent a tacit signal to their voters to vote tactically for the Lib Dem candidate.

That's how it tends to work.

Probably too much of a “real world “ argument for an obsessive.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2023 18:55:38 GMT crossbat11 said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:45:18 GMT graham said:

That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail  on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued  despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak.

I refer you to my previous post. Nobody is "evil" in current British politics. Why are you attaching these sorts of descriptions to democratically elected politicians? We may strongly disapprove of, and disagree with, politicians whose policies and beliefs differ to ours, but you keep invoking the language of US religious extremists, preachers and demagogues to people and events that don't merit your hyperbolic and morally loaded descriptions.

Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are evil, and to describe them as such is to rob the word of its true meaning and application.

I’m sure I’m not the only one utterly sick of this incessant, holier than thou drivel. And when it’s tied in with stuff such as wishing that Blair could be killed in the same way as Bin Laden I’m amazed that it hasn’t long since stretched the elastic tolerance of this site to breaking point. It’s all very ugly. 

(I don’t even wish that Bin Laden had been killed in the same way as Bin Laden. But then I’m not “christian”.)

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 21, 2023 18:23:58 GMT James E said:

Jul 21, 2023 17:56:37 GMT Danny said:

Why under the Uk constitution would we need a referendum to rejoing the EU?

We've just joined CPTPP without any referendum, so there is a recent  precedent. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSy_lwQUR9Y


But to answer, Carfrew' s question, the only poll I can find ended up as a tie on the question of whether we should have another referendum in the next 5 years. 

www.whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-think-there-should-be-another-referendum-in-the-next-5-years-on-britain-rejoining-the-european-union/

As this is lower than the 58% who typically want to rejoin (and 61% per YouGov's most recent poll), it seems that there must be some who just want to rejoin, but don't want a referendum (as we've done with CPTPP). I would imagine that most Leavers don't want a referendum where they would be likely to lose.  

we have joined CPTPP without a ref., but that is rather more of a trade deal rather than more of a political union with currency implications etc.

Regarding the data on the ref., thanks for finding it - it’s possible some may want to rejoin without a ref., though the issue was more about the leavers in the marginals, whether they would want to revisit the EU question any time soon. 

[catmanjeff]

Evening all.

I've been busy today but have just looked up the ULEZ compliant car rules, seeing this is much referenced regarding the Uxbridge by-election result.

These seems to be the rules:

ULEZ compliant cars
Vehicles needs to meet different emission standards to travel through ULEZ, or other low emission zones, without paying a charge.

ULEZ compliant cars meet the emission standards, as set out below.
ULEZ compliant petrol cars for sale
Petrol cars must meet Euro 4 emissions standards to be ULEZ compliant. Most, if not all, petrol cars registered since January 2006 meet these standards.

Petrol cars that meet Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards are also exempt from paying charges.
ULEZ compliant diesel cars for sale
Diesel cars must meet Euro 6 standards to be ULEZ compliant.

Almost every diesel car registered since September 2015 meets these standards, though some earlier models do too (you can find some ULEZ compliant diesel cars going back to 2012).
ULEZ compliant hybrid cars for sale
To be ULEZ compliant, hybrid cars must meet the same standard as petrol or diesel cars. So petrol hybrids (the most common type), must meet Euro 4 standards and diesel hybrids must meet Euro 6 standards.
ULEZ compliant electric cars for sale
All electric cars are ULEZ compliant, as they produce zero tailpipe emissions.


www.autotrader.co.uk/content/advice/ulez-lez-caz-low-emission-zones-explained

So most petrol cars 2006 onwards, and diesel cars 2015 onwards are exempt.

My old Zafira, 2007, would be exempt. It cost me the princely sum of £1,300 a few years ago, and is still going well.

From various comments of people worried about the charge, I suspect most would not be affected, or could replace the small number of older vehicle for a modest amount. I wonder how the campaign against ULEZ expansion was done. Were the number of people and cars affected over-stated?

I'm not saying it's easy, but a fairly modest scrappage scheme could quite easily help get the worst cars off the road. It wouldn't take 10K per car compensation, but much less.

Clean air doesn't come free, but it's surely a price worth paying in major cities. The best green initiatives need some carrot to implement

[graham]

Jul 21, 2023 18:55:38 GMT crossbat11 said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:45:18 GMT graham said:

That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail  on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued  despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak.

I refer you to my previous post. Nobody is "evil" in current British politics. Why are you attaching these sorts of descriptions to democratically elected politicians? We may strongly disapprove of, and disagree with, politicians whose policies and beliefs differ to ours, but you keep invoking the language of US religious extremists, preachers and demagogues to people and events that don't merit your hyperbolic and morally loaded descriptions.

Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are evil, and to describe them as such is to rob the word of its true meaning and application.

Do you really find it difficult to imagine Braverman happily working as a staff member to Himmler or Heydrich?  She is widely referred to as 'Cruella.'

[crossbat11]

Jul 21, 2023 19:08:34 GMT graham said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:55:38 GMT crossbat11 said:

I refer you to my previous post. Nobody is "evil" in current British politics. Why are you attaching these sorts of descriptions to democratically elected politicians? We may strongly disapprove of, and disagree with, politicians whose policies and beliefs differ to ours, but you keep invoking the language of US religious extremists, preachers and demagogues to people and events that don't merit your hyperbolic and morally loaded descriptions.

Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are evil, and to describe them as such is to rob the word of its true meaning and application.

Do you really find it difficult to imagine Braverman happily working as a staff member to Himmler or Heydrich?  She is widely referred to as 'Cruella.'

Yes.

[Dave]

Jul 21, 2023 18:45:18 GMT graham said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:22:14 GMT Dave said:

By being happy that actual Tories won?

You said hahaha to a Tories win over what you (incorrectly, and far too simplistically, black-and-whitely) describe as neo-Tories.

I think you’d count yourself as left of centre. I know it’s an old and frankly tedious argument on here, but if you’re ok with an actual Tory win over Labour as you seem to be, and consider yourself loc then you’re either detached from the reality of people’s lives who you must know Labour will seek to improve more than the Tories ever, ever, EVER, will, or you’re ideologically pure in your own mind so perfection trumps gradual/ any improvement in people’s lives in the here and now, OR, and I wonder how many this applies to, you’re doing ok yourself, so who wins doesn’t really matter to you and you can afford the luxury of being happy of being ‘pure’ despite the prospect of another Tory government not affecting your world.

You said the other day you’d vote green or not vote at all. Had you lived in Uxbridge, you’d have contributed to a Tory win. Are you happy with that? Genuine question, because you seem to be because I’m loc and would never be happy if I’d had my chance to evict a Tory and failed to take it.

Anyway, I might go into details on this seat. I’ve lived there. I work there now. It’s unusual for London. I thought we’d (Labour - I know who I am) win but honestly am not surprised at the narrow loss.

That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail  on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued  despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak.

To put Starmer and Sunak in the same argument as Hitler and Franco is beyond bizarre and I’m being kind to you.

Your world seems to be black and white and full of absolutes. I’ve got to break it to you - this world is not black and white and full of absolutes, but seeing as I was brought up in the Catholic faith I can see that as with every other ‘black-and-white’ faith, if I’d have accepted what the Christian brothers indoctrinated me in I might be more of your ilk.

To get to my main point, if you somehow see Franco as being akin even in a metaphorical way to Starmer then you’ve lost the plot.

[Dave]

Jul 21, 2023 18:45:18 GMT graham said:

That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail  on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued  despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak.

Oh, you didn't respond to this bit of the post that you responded to ....

"You said the other day you’d vote green or not vote at all. Had you lived in Uxbridge, you’d have contributed to a Tory win. Are you happy with that"?


Of course you don't have to respond but a yes or no would be appreciated.   For me, now more than ever, it's time to take sides or carp from the sidelines and risk forever being side-lined by those who tried. 

[graham]

Jul 21, 2023 19:22:55 GMT Dave said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:45:18 GMT graham said:

That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail  on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued  despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak.

Oh, you didn't respond to this bit of the post that you responded to ....

"You said the other day you’d vote green or not vote at all. Had you lived in Uxbridge, you’d have contributed to a Tory win. Are you happy with that"?


Of course you don't have to respond but a yes or no would be appreciated.   For me, now more than ever, it's time to take sides or carp from the sidelines and risk forever being side-lined by those who tried. 

I would probably have voted Green rather than Tory or NeoTory.

[Deleted]

graham

“ Do you really find it difficult to imagine Braverman happily working as a staff member to Himmler or Heydrich?

*She is widely referred to as 'Cruella.'* “

Ah well, that is obviously convincing proof that she would definitely have worked with the worst of the Nazis 80 to 90 years ago. Even wb61 would surely convict given that nickname.

You really do live in the weirdest, most judgmental world I can begin to imagine. It is increasingly bizarre, worrying and ugly to read - very little different in tone to the worst of the mad QAnon, right wing loonies in America.

[Danny]

Jul 21, 2023 18:54:36 GMT domjg said:

Jul 21, 2023 17:11:22 GMT Rafwan said:

pjw1961

Are you saying that Johnson/truss were consequence of Corbyn’s leadership?

The whole tory populist takeover was greatly assisted by Corbyn's leadership yes. Plenty of other factors as well though.

The only way in which Corbyn could have assisted Johnson to become con leader was if he succeeded as labour leader to make May seem ineffectual.

So... was Corbyn actually a success, or did the conservatve party defeat itself in the 2017 parliament? Johnson became leader because he was the natural leader of Brexit and con had decided they had no choice but to implement Brexit. They could find no way to avoid it and stay in power.

[EmCat]

Jul 21, 2023 11:01:06 GMT lens said:

Jul 21, 2023 9:17:58 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Firstly, I ... own a 17 year old diesel. 

It's interesting how long a vehicle is expected to last has changed.

Back in th 1970s, and many cars (except Volvo - they built their reputation on longevity) were not expected to last 10 years. Even in the 80s, it was still unusual for cars to last that long (In 1983, when the year prefix registration scheme replaced the year suffix scheme, seeing an 'L' registered car from 1973 was uncommon. In 1993  - now an L prefix - seeing an A prefix car was almost as unusual).

When the scrapple scheme was introduced in around 2010 for cars over 10 years old, such was the uptake that even though cars were in general more reliable, the uptake was such to make them uncommon again.

That iit is now almost expected that cars will just last shows how much things have improved

[pjw1961]

Jul 21, 2023 17:11:22 GMT Rafwan said:

pjw1961

Are you saying that Johnson/truss were consequence of Corbyn’s leadership?

In the sense that Corbyn lost the 2019 election to Johnson, yes.

Obvioulsy Corbyn wasn't responsible for their personality flaws and ridiculous policies - that was all the Conservatives doing - but Corbyn "boosting" the Labour party to yet two more election defeats plainly did nothing to prevent either of them becoming Prime Minister. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Jul 21, 2023 19:42:26 GMT Danny said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:54:36 GMT domjg said:

The whole tory populist takeover was greatly assisted by Corbyn's leadership yes. Plenty of other factors as well though.

The only way in which Corbyn could have assisted Johnson to become con leader was if he succeeded as labour leader to make May seem ineffectual.

So... was Corbyn actually a success, or did the conservatve party defeat itself in the 2017 parliament? Johnson became leader because he was the natural leader of Brexit and con had decided they had no choice but to implement Brexit. They could find no way to avoid it and stay in power.

When I recently took a look at the 2017 GE (which some seemed to find a trifle traumatic), I pointed out that Tories changed leader after Corbyn was out-polling May. So they went for Johnson, someone charismatic but flawed, who also tacked left for good measure. Eventually the flaws did for him and Starmer is reaping the reward (and possibly using it to move right again. Unless it’s a bluff. I’m hoping it’s a bluff)

[Rafwan]

Jul 21, 2023 18:08:48 GMT Danny said:

Jul 21, 2023 12:45:10 GMT Rafwan said:

steve

Few policies are perfectly executed, especially complex ones like climate, etc. If you wait for perfection you will never do anything. And yes there will be risks attached. Consequences rarely fall evenly and fairly. But my experience is that if you campaign with unity, and make the effort to explain and argue, and explicitly call upon people to recognise and accept consequences, they are much more likely to be prepared to run with you. But here you had the opposite, with the mayor firm in approach but the candidate weak at the knees. Of course it is going to turn a lot of people off. The right strategy here would have been aggressively pro-ULEZ. Start with a leaflet, banner-headed “ULEZ will save N lives every month, including Y in Uxbridge”.

But would it? One poster has suggested buses are now the principle polluters of London. Another, that the scheme calls for scrapping cars which in reality are no different to others being permitted. Yet another that the scheme is intended to raise revenue rather than improve air quality. Myself, I pointed out the amount of pollution produced depends not only on the vehicle but the total miles driven, so an old smokey car seldom driven might in fact be contributing less to london pollution than one nearly new which does many miles.

My point really is about how to conduct a campaign. The policy had been decided (and personally I agree with it, despite the reservations you raise). If when the going gets a bit tough you start backtracking then it is hardly surprising the voting public lose confidence.    

[domjg]

Jul 21, 2023 19:45:49 GMT EmCat said:

Jul 21, 2023 11:01:06 GMT lens said:

Firstly, I ... own a 17 year old diesel. 

It's interesting how long a vehicle is expected to last has changed.

Back in th 1970s, and many cars (except Volvo - they built their reputation on longevity) were not expected to last 10 years. Even in the 80s, it was still unusual for cars to last that long (In 1983, when the year prefix registration scheme replaced the year suffix scheme, seeing an 'L' registered car from 1973 was uncommon. In 1993  - now an L prefix - seeing an A prefix car was almost as unusual).

When the scrapple scheme was introduced in around 2010 for cars over 10 years old, such was the uptake that even though cars were in general more reliable, the uptake was such to make them uncommon again.

That iit is now almost expected that cars will just last shows how much things have improved

With all this ULEZ talk I checked my own car's compliance. It's a 2016 diesel that's done only 57000 miles. Turns out that as it's Euro 5 it's not compliant. That's not a big deal for me currently as I never drive to even outer London though I guess that I'd fall foul if I even visited the main Heathrow terminals after next month.

I guess the issue I have is that if these zones are extended more widely across the country my perfectly functional car with many miles ahead of it becomes suddenly becomes effectively worthless.
That's a lot of cars in good condition suddenly going to waste and with a lot of emissions caused by new vehicle manufacture produced to replace them.

[Rafwan]

Jul 21, 2023 18:54:36 GMT domjg said:

Jul 21, 2023 17:11:22 GMT Rafwan said:

pjw1961

Are you saying that Johnson/truss were consequence of Corbyn’s leadership?

The whole tory populist takeover was greatly assisted by Corbyn's leadership yes. Plenty of other factors as well though.

The distinguishing feature of Corbyn’s leadership was that it was a bit lefty. That is certainly Blair’s view, widely expressed. So the logic of this argument seems to be that anything a bit lefty will lead to the Tory populism of Johnson and Truss. I simply don’t believe that to be the case.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

“Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages have been recovered from his old phone, a spokesman for the former prime minister has confirmed. Mr Johnson will now hand them over unredacted to the Covid Inquiry.

“Boris Johnson is pleased that technical experts have now successfully recovered all relevant messages from the device,” said the spokesman. “As repeatedly stated, he will now deliver this material in unreacted form to the inquiry.

“The inquiry process requires that a security check of this material is now made by the Cabinet Office. The timing of any further progress on delivery to the inquiry is therefore under the Cabinet Office’s control.

“It was always the case that Boris Johnson would pass this material to the inquiry and do everything possible to help it be recovered. A careful process, approved by the inquiry, has been followed to ensure that this was successful.””

Telegraph

[catmanjeff]

Jul 21, 2023 20:04:49 GMT domjg said:

Jul 21, 2023 19:45:49 GMT EmCat said:

It's interesting how long a vehicle is expected to last has changed.

Back in th 1970s, and many cars (except Volvo - they built their reputation on longevity) were not expected to last 10 years. Even in the 80s, it was still unusual for cars to last that long (In 1983, when the year prefix registration scheme replaced the year suffix scheme, seeing an 'L' registered car from 1973 was uncommon. In 1993  - now an L prefix - seeing an A prefix car was almost as unusual).

When the scrapple scheme was introduced in around 2010 for cars over 10 years old, such was the uptake that even though cars were in general more reliable, the uptake was such to make them uncommon again.

That iit is now almost expected that cars will just last shows how much things have improved

With all this ULEZ talk I checked my own car's compliance. It's a 2016 diesel that's done only 57000 miles. Turns out that as it's Euro 5 it's not compliant. That's not a big deal for me currently as I never drive to even outer London though I guess that I'd fall foul if I even visited the main Heathrow terminals after next month.

I guess the issue I have is that if these zones are extended more widely across the country my perfectly functional car with many miles ahead of it becomes suddenly becomes effectively worthless.
That's a lot of cars in good condition suddenly going to waste and with a lot of emissions caused by new vehicle manufacture produced to replace them.

Why would it go to waste?

It could sold to vast areas of the country without ULEZ rules.

[domjg]

Jul 21, 2023 19:04:47 GMT catmanjeff said:

Evening all.

I've been busy today but have just looked up the ULEZ compliant car rules, seeing this is much referenced regarding the Uxbridge by-election result.

These seems to be the rules:

ULEZ compliant cars
Vehicles needs to meet different emission standards to travel through ULEZ, or other low emission zones, without paying a charge.

ULEZ compliant cars meet the emission standards, as set out below.
ULEZ compliant petrol cars for sale
Petrol cars must meet Euro 4 emissions standards to be ULEZ compliant. Most, if not all, petrol cars registered since January 2006 meet these standards.

Petrol cars that meet Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards are also exempt from paying charges.
ULEZ compliant diesel cars for sale
Diesel cars must meet Euro 6 standards to be ULEZ compliant.

Almost every diesel car registered since September 2015 meets these standards, though some earlier models do too (you can find some ULEZ compliant diesel cars going back to 2012).
ULEZ compliant hybrid cars for sale
To be ULEZ compliant, hybrid cars must meet the same standard as petrol or diesel cars. So petrol hybrids (the most common type), must meet Euro 4 standards and diesel hybrids must meet Euro 6 standards.
ULEZ compliant electric cars for sale
All electric cars are ULEZ compliant, as they produce zero tailpipe emissions.


www.autotrader.co.uk/content/advice/ulez-lez-caz-low-emission-zones-explained

So most petrol cars 2006 onwards, and diesel cars 2015 onwards are exempt.

My old Zafira, 2007, would be exempt. It cost me the princely sum of £1,300 a few years ago, and is still going well.

From various comments of people worried about the charge, I suspect most would not be affected, or could replace the small number of older vehicle for a modest amount. I wonder how the campaign against ULEZ expansion was done. Were the number of people and cars affected over-stated?

I'm not saying it's easy, but a fairly modest scrappage scheme could quite easily help get the worst cars off the road. It wouldn't take 10K per car compensation, but much less.

Clean air doesn't come free, but it's surely a price worth paying in major cities. The best green initiatives need some carrot to implement

I am very much in favour in principle of schemes like ULEZ however as I mentioned already i have a 2016 diesel car on only 57000 miles that is not compliant. It's not really much of an issue for me to replace it as I was planning to anyway but I think it indicates that many more people may be affected than perhaps assumed and they may not be in a position to easily change their vehicle.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2023 18:54:36 GMT domjg said:

Jul 21, 2023 17:11:22 GMT Rafwan said:

pjw1961

Are you saying that Johnson/truss were consequence of Corbyn’s leadership?

The whole tory populist takeover was greatly assisted by Corbyn's leadership yes. Plenty of other factors as well though.

Then there was Ed Miliband beating his brother. And Gordon Brown. All guilty of causing Johnson Truss & Sunak by losing.

[domjg]

Jul 21, 2023 20:13:05 GMT catmanjeff said:

Jul 21, 2023 20:04:49 GMT domjg said:

With all this ULEZ talk I checked my own car's compliance. It's a 2016 diesel that's done only 57000 miles. Turns out that as it's Euro 5 it's not compliant. That's not a big deal for me currently as I never drive to even outer London though I guess that I'd fall foul if I even visited the main Heathrow terminals after next month.

I guess the issue I have is that if these zones are extended more widely across the country my perfectly functional car with many miles ahead of it becomes suddenly becomes effectively worthless.
That's a lot of cars in good condition suddenly going to waste and with a lot of emissions caused by new vehicle manufacture produced to replace them.

Why would it go to waste?

It could sold to vast areas of the country without ULEZ rules.

At the moment yes, but I'm imagining what would happen if other cities across the country followed suit. That would immediately make such vehicles nearly worthless. In fact there will no doubt be a sudden glut of them on the second hand market being sold by people in London to other parts of the country.

[crossbat11]

Jul 21, 2023 19:53:20 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Jul 21, 2023 19:42:26 GMT Danny said:

The only way in which Corbyn could have assisted Johnson to become con leader was if he succeeded as labour leader to make May seem ineffectual.

So... was Corbyn actually a success, or did the conservatve party defeat itself in the 2017 parliament? Johnson became leader because he was the natural leader of Brexit and con had decided they had no choice but to implement Brexit. They could find no way to avoid it and stay in power.

When I recently took a look at the 2017 GE (which some seemed to find a trifle traumatic), I pointed out that Tories changed leader after Corbyn was out-polling May. So they went for Johnson, someone charismatic but flawed, who also tacked left for good measure. Eventually the flaws did for him and Starmer is reaping the reward (and possibly using it to move right again. Unless it’s a bluff. I’m hoping it’s a bluff)

Not sure the Tories ditched May because Corbyn was outpolling her. She hadn't long beaten him in a General Election and I don't think the Tories were at all spooked by Corbyn's Labour outpolling them at that early stage in the Parliament.

Wasn't May's defenestration much more to do with her Brexit struggles and a very clever coup by Johnson and his army of followers and flatterers? Johnson was on manoeuvres quite soon after May won in 2017.

I think it may be a stretch to suggest Corbyn's polling was a factor. Counterintuitively, could it be argued that Corbyn's polling was boosted by May's increasing haplessness in office rather than anything much he was doing himself? I know this argument is applied to Starmer now. That he is an unwitting beneficiary of the Tory Government's woes and deserves little credit for his and his party's advancement in the polls.

Or am I being a little unfair to Corbyn and that after 2017 he was making the political weather?

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Anyone else going to see the new Barbie movie?

[Rafwan]

Jul 21, 2023 19:47:04 GMT pjw1961 said:

Jul 21, 2023 17:11:22 GMT Rafwan said:

pjw1961

Are you saying that Johnson/truss were consequence of Corbyn’s leadership?

In the sense that Corbyn lost the 2019 election to Johnson, yes.

Obvioulsy Corbyn wasn't responsible for their personality flaws and ridiculous policies - that was all the Conservatives doing - but Corbyn "boosting" the Labour party to yet two more election defeats plainly did nothing to prevent either of them becoming Prime Minister. 

Don’t you think it is possible the (former) Uxbridge CLP chair was saying that it was the activities of those who sabotaged Corbyn’s leadership (the factions identified in the Forde report) who were responsible?

[pjw1961]

Jul 21, 2023 20:16:18 GMT nickp said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:54:36 GMT domjg said:

The whole tory populist takeover was greatly assisted by Corbyn's leadership yes. Plenty of other factors as well though.

Then there was Ed Miliband beating his brother. And Gordon Brown. All guilty of causing Johnson Truss & Sunak by losing.

Yes, they were guilty of causing Tory governments by losing elections, which involves being less popular than the other lot. 

As I have noted before, I turned 18 in 1979 and there have been 11 General Elections in that period of which Labour has managed to win a frankly pathetic 3 - all by Tony Blair, widely loathed on this site. I can't help feeling that many people in Labour prefer losing - much easier to maintain the purity of one's conscience without the tiresome need to actually exercise power. Meanwhile the Tories loot the country to enrich themselves and their mates. 

Since we like a sporting reference here, it is a bit like a football team losing every match but congratulating themselves with the thought that they played the more stylish football. Personally, I'd settle for a few dull, defensive 1-0 wins.