Soldato
Because you just said it doesn’t affect you so why are you obsessed with it as if it does?
London pollution & ULEZ
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
Soldato
I think he's just living up to his username.
It will be interesting to see how people feel when this stuff does start to affect them further down the line.
Last edited:
Soldato
He’ll probably have replaced his car in the future. That’s the whole point…
Wasn't there many councils trying to get exempted?
Caporegime
There are things call logic, it’s illogical to pick and choose tax certain pollution and not others, it’s illogical to tax a car and then not do anything about the airport. It is also a sense of frustration to tax people who doesn’t live in London and not going into London. The line is arbitrary, it’s drawn by human and can be redrawn again by human.
Heathrow is a massive hub for the whole country, there are people who lives miles away that needs to go there, it just happens the airport is located inside the M25, and they are affected by it. They can’t turn back time and move the airport, but they could easily exclude it from ULEZ as I’ve drawn though. It doesn’t affect ULEZ in London, as people going to the airport isn’t going to London.
Soldato
TBF if it’s so important it should be rolled out everywhere not just in one place. Cars don’t suddenly stop emitting when you leave London.
Soldato
I’ve already pointed out that they are doing things about the airports emissions. They have been for years. Flight restrictions, additional levies and taxes, phasing out of older aircraft as they become uneconomical to operate.
Airlines are by the very nature of the economics of the business under pressure to operate in the most efficient way possible which involves running the greenest aircraft.
All unrelated to ULEZ and the stated policy aims.
Define London. Do you want the zone to only cover Greater London? That’s just as arbitrary as covering only inside the M25. And by your logic if we make Heathrow exempt why not other airports, seaports, transport hubs etc? Why is Heathrow special? Manchester has more destinations. East Midlands handles more cargo. I doubt they’d be exempt from expanding or new ULEZ zones.
I’m particularly partial to flying from regional airports to Amsterdam or Paris for long haul connections as it usually saves a bunch.
I’ve already said I think it should cover the entire country.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Last I checked, what makes it special? Heathrow is the largest airport in the UK?
A different topic and goal posts on why you want to fly to Paris or Amsterdam and then fly out of Europe…but I’ll bite, I dislike connections, it adds time to journey, CDG is a hell hole, it also isn’t that much cheaper when I check flight prices, and the risk of losing luggage increases with a connection.
I agree it should include the entire country, but the way it is that punish people not going into London seems wrong, and I’m not even one of those affected.
Soldato
If anything, Heathrow being the largest airport in the UK is a good reason to include it in the ULEZ zone as the small proportion of non-compliant vehicles will be greater than visiting other airports and therefore you're targeting more of the people who you want to encourage to give up their older vehicles and choose either public transport, taxi or upgrading their vehicle to something cleaner.
Considering you have to pay at least £5 to drop off now at Heathrow (unless you're willing to use the Park and Rides), an additional £12.50 charge if you're in an older vehicle might nudge just enough people into using alternative transport to consider the policy a success.
There's lots of places in the new zone that aren't really London yet will incur charges for owners of those vehicles. Heathrow isn't special.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,661
which odious little man is this? because this is Boris Johnsons policy isn't it and despite the turncoat lies was also pushed by Schapps as shown earlier in thread... it is just being put in place by someone else who happens to be on the left so is now being used by the Tories as a vote winner as being bad.
And Starmeleon wants to drop it like a hot potato, too.
None of them have any real principles, when push comes to shove, as they say.
Soldato
The point of ULEZ is money and not reducing anything of note, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, what's the problem with that, even if true?
Government needs money to run services. Government chooses to tax some things more than others.
Sugar tax, et al. What's wrong with taxing polluting vehicles more heavily? Even if nobody gives a damn about clean air (clearly some do..)
Associate
I guess it can be seen as another tax on the poor, skim a bit more off the rich peoples wallets if they need more money
It doesn't have to be tho. You could call a "junk food tax" a tax on the poor, too, but it doesn't have to be.I guess it can be seen as another tax on the poor, skim a bit more off the rich peoples wallets if they need more money
Soldato
Many people are at breaking point, we have food banks in a supposedly 1st world country!!!
If they cared about clean air why do they keep on getting rid of trees and green belt land?
Caporegime
Travel is often essential for some people, and a personal car the most practical or economic way for them to do it.
Junk food is not essential and healthier alternatives tend to be cheaper.
It is absolutely a hit on the poor.
Expecting a cohesive and consistent policy programme from the current lot is asking a bit too much.
But that in itself doesn't make a high-emission tax (or a junk food tax) a bad policy in its own right.
The poor are not a priority for the current government, but that's a conscious decision from the Tory government, not an inevitable and unsolvable problem.
I mean, you could have free public transport (that was half decent) for the poor, if you wanted..
Last edited:
Also I hope none of the people saying "Won't somebody think of the poor?" are the same people in favour of BTL landlords, uncapped rents, house price inflation, etc.
Seems to me to be a convenient excuse for not giving a damn about air quality, in the guise of "helping the poorest" when in other contexts, nobody gives a damn about the poor. Call me cynical!
Seems to me to be a convenient excuse for not giving a damn about air quality, in the guise of "helping the poorest" when in other contexts, nobody gives a damn about the poor. Call me cynical!