London pollution & ULEZ

No, the point is that the current govt isn't interested in pursuing policies that benefit the poor. You could imagine any number of policies - the timescales don't matter because the government isn't interested.

To drag the affect on the poor into this debate is disingenuous. It's not about the poor. Or concern for the poor. The current govt has none.

Lest we forget, the current govt has been in power for 13 years. They have not chosen to implement (or even begin to implement) policies that benefit the poor. More often, we've had instead people like IDS waging a war on the poor and the disabled (etc, etc).
 
Last edited:
I'm giving you a pragmatic solution to the issue surrounding ULEZ that can be implemented now to support vulnerable people. Anything outside of that is all viable but cannot happen overnight.

All I'm seeing is posturing about government ideology and the wicked "Evil Tories" but no suggestions on how the implementation of ULEZ can be fixed to lessen the impact on people that need to be protected. Shall we talk about the elephant in the room? Khan is a Labour mayor.
 
Peter75 said:
I'm giving you a pragmatic solution to the issue surrounding ULEZ that can be implemented now to support vulnerable people. Anything outside of that is all viable but cannot happen overnight.

All I'm seeing is posturing about government ideology and the wicked "Evil Tories" but no suggestions on how the implementation of ULEZ can be fixed to lessen the impact on people that need to be protected. Shall we talk about the elephant in the room? Khan is a Labour mayor.
Click to expand...
By the same logic, we shouldn't have taxes on junk food or smoking.

"Likelihood of smoking four times higher in England’s most deprived areas than least deprived"

Likelihood of smoking four times higher in England’s most deprived areas than least deprived - Office for National Statistics

Explore a range of predictors of smoking in England, including area deprivation, occupation, qualifications and disability status.
www.ons.gov.uk

Quick, get rid of all that tax on cigarettes!
 
Peter75 said:
I'm giving you a pragmatic solution to the issue surrounding ULEZ that can be implemented now to support vulnerable people. Anything outside of that is all viable but cannot happen overnight.

All I'm seeing is posturing about government ideology and the wicked "Evil Tories" but no suggestions on how the implementation of ULEZ can be fixed to lessen the impact on people that need to be protected. Shall we talk about the elephant in the room? Khan is a Labour mayor.
Click to expand...

Means tested extension to the scrappage scheme, maybe even something to provide straight up conversions/replacements which should also cover the border counties with London.

The Labour party as it currently is cares about poor people about as much as the Tories so it sort of tracks.
 
FoxEye said:
Don't use the poor as a shield. I'm sure plenty of poor people would rather have clean air/pedestrianisation.

Plenty of poor people don't even own cars.

If people really gave a damn about the poor, they'd fix social housing, public transport, free school meals, and a host of other things. Tories don't give two **** about the poor and neither do their voters.
Click to expand...
whilst I have sympathy for poor folk I think there is a little dishonesty using those whilst at the same time lamenting that 12.50 when going to the airport is the problem.
if it's just going on holiday that 12.50 isn't going to break the bank. if you are going to the air port all the time then chances are you are not poor........ IF it is staff travelling to the airport then that is where there needs to be a decent park and ride or equivalent.
I am not defending the ULEZ in its current configuration because in truth I don't know what public transport is like in London and surrounding areas. as a principle however I support it and if it was Cambridge where I know there is a good park and ride I say bring it on. (tho a lot of locals are currently complaining about it possibly coming in)
*some* people claiming about worrying about the poor are probably genuine... but IME many will use any excuse they can to get something they want green lit or something they don't like blocked.
 
Last edited:
Peter75 said:
As I have previously mentioned, FoxEye's suggestions are all fantastic ideas but we can't just magic up 180k social housing overnight. The ULEZ however, can be stopped/amended right now to protect the most vulnerable.
Click to expand...
or ULEZ could go ahead but if you can prove to be really hard up then get a grant to help get an affordable complaint car. our peugeot is about 2.5k value but is ULEZ compliant. (where as our qashqai we just sold for 4.5k wasn't compliant)

edit actually our pug isn't compliant either but still my point stands..... there are plenty of cars which would pass which cost next to nowt.
 
Last edited:
Well Rishi is gonna scrap LTNs and no doubt turn the screws on ULEZ.

Filthy air in London doesn’t discriminate between poor and rich. We all suffer the consequences of air pollution. Now we get to have some dim witted political in fighting over it too. Yay for us.
 
If we do want to ignore the health aspects and consider it as a purely financially driven thing it's quite interesting to compare the ~£200m it should raise per year (which should decline over time as people gradually work around it) to the more dubious government COVID related schemes like eat out to help out (£800m) or the stamp duty holiday (£6.4bn).
 
Last edited:
Lightnix said:
If we do want to ignore the health aspects and consider it as a purely financially driven thing it's quite interesting to compare the ~£200m it should raise per year (which should decline over time as people gradually work around it) to the more dubious government COVID related schemes like eat out to help out (£800m) or the stamp duty holiday (£6.4bn).
Click to expand...
Isn’t the whole point to combat air pollution though?
 
Voltar said:
Well Rishi is gonna scrap LTNs and no doubt turn the screws on ULEZ.

Filthy air in London doesn’t discriminate between poor and rich. We all suffer the consequences of air pollution. Now we get to have some dim witted political in fighting over it too. Yay for us.
Click to expand...
I know the climate change thread didn't get very far but with dim witted politicians using the inalienable right of motorists to drive wherever and however they please, I really don't hold out much hope of having a liveable planet in a few years. If rich countries like the UK do not even have the political courage to improve their own cities, what chance is there of developing countries doing anything?

Every time we thing we cannot possibly get a worse PM, along comes the next dim-wit to prove us wrong.
 
LTNs aren't popular in the neighborhoods they have been introduced in. It has mainly been to pander to certain lobbies. It's aim was to get people cycling or walking and so was deliberately trying to make driving difficult for everyone. Loads have been removed, because they were done without consultation and most people released it just shifted traffic, reducing available road space and created more congestion and pollution.

ULEZ is popular in London as its aim isn't to get people to stop driving, but creates cleaner air for everyone. ULEZ has very little to do with climate change. It is mainly to get rid of black smoke chugging diesels. The anti-ULEZ lobby often point out how some V8 supercar is okay under ULEZ, well yeh, it is for good reason.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
LTNs aren't popular in the neighborhoods they have been introduced in. It has mainly been to pander to certain lobbies. It's aim was to get people cycling or walking and so was deliberately trying to make driving difficult for everyone. Loads have been removed, because they were done without consultation and most people released it just shifted traffic, reducing available road space and created more congestion and pollution.

ULEZ is popular in London as its aim isn't to get people to stop driving, but creates cleaner air for everyone. ULEZ has very little to do with climate change. It is mainly to get rid of black smoke chugging diesels. The anti-ULEZ lobby often point out how some V8 supercar is okay under ULEZ, well yeh, it is for good reason.
Click to expand...

At the last local elections around here the anti-LTN candidates were overwhelmingly beaten.

Support is very high if they're implemented properly.
 
Azza said:
At the last local elections around here the anti-LTN candidates were overwhelmingly beaten.

Support is very high if they're implemented properly.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough most people don't like their own residential street being used as a rat run.

Especially when the rat runners don't like sticking to 30mph, either.
 
henry hoov3r said:
If air quality was such a concern why is he not addressing the appalling quality of air on the tube?
Click to expand...
Is this an OR thing?

They are doing things but don't expect instant results.

Meantime, why cannot they not improve pollution from cars?

Of course, politicians in this country are mostly cowards doing whatever the tabloids wants: the best way to tackle both exhausts and brake and tyre pollution would be to introduce GPS locked speed and acceleration limiters in all cars. Plus black boxes in all cars and no more "it was a traffic accident" - if it was cause by someone driving badly prosecute them!

The whole emissions fraud by the car companies was pure fraud, but the other part of emissions testing is that car manufacturer test without crazy acceleration and braking - about time they stopped selling cars able to the 0-60 in crazy seconds then.

As well as the benefit for all pedestrians and cyclists, drivers would get far better fuel economy and have far less wear and tear on their cars.
 
GIBURROWS said:
Some people actually believe the climate change twaddle, OMG the world is dead in the next 10 minutes!!!!
Click to expand...
wow.... do you still think the earth is flat, 5g messes with your brain and covid was a government conspiracy as well?. of course climate change is real..... of course the time you added is your own twaddle but I suspect even those here who disagree with the topic of this thread would admit we are adversely affecting the climate (adversely for us at least)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom