Sadiq Khan wins 2024 London Mayoral election

[noggins]

What I like most about Mayor Khan is his unifying effect on the nation.

As a metrosexualist elite I do assume that the hoi polloi of the provinces are ricket-ridden rat faced inbreds who eat coal, who would at best mock my refinement and taste, and at worst butcher me and put me in a pie.

So It is quite marvellous when they take a moment out of their drab, wretched lives, to take the internet - the face-books et al. to fight against the wicked communist car-banning stabbist-pandering woke islamicalist mayor and his devious plots to destroy our wonderful capital, despite their oft-stated antipathy to its charms.

[lpm]

Of that 486, 1 is electric, 2 are petrol hybrid and and two are petrol plug in hybrid, 98 are straight petrol and 383 are diesel. That's because wheelchair accessible vehicles are adapted from small vans.

Why do you think all existing accessible cars/van won't be eligible for the ULEV zone?

Why do you think there's no fund available specifically for people on disability benefits?

And above all, why do you prioritise the mobility impaired ahead of those whose disability is related to COPD or heart problems, the people who are killed by air pollution?

[noggins]

To half heartedly endorse lpms contrarian bollocks (which i generally agree with 57.3% of the time), why is the discourse "ULEZ bad cos i care" rather than "heres a workable strategy to mitigate the effect on the truly vulnerable" ?

[EACLucifer]

To half heartedly endorse lpms contrarian bollocks (which i generally agree with 57.3% of the time), why is the discourse "ULEZ bad cos i care" rather than "heres a workable strategy to mitigate the effect on the truly vulnerable" ?

Because it isn't my f.cking job to come up with policy, and I'm not required to do so to point out when policy harms people, that's why.

And it's not "ULEZ bad cos i care", it's "ULEZ bad because it forces mobility impaired people to either buy a new vehicle they could well struggle to fund and go through all the hassle of having it appropriately converted where specific adaptions are required or be charged nearly ninety quid a week to use it in a city that puts great effort into providing public transport for able-bodied people and doesn't give a f.ck about making it available to mobility impaired people"

[bagpuss]

To half heartedly endorse lpms contrarian bollocks (which i generally agree with 57.3% of the time), why is the discourse "ULEZ bad cos i care" rather than "heres a workable strategy to mitigate the effect on the truly vulnerable" ?

I think it's more that we're focussing on the bad to make it clear that it's a bit more bl..dy complicated than that, in response to lpm's somewhat ridiculous conclusion from the by-election result that "English voters, it turns out, are pro pollution."

To be totally clear, I am 100% in favour of the expanded ULEZ zone, I just wish they'd done it/been allowed to do it, in a way that caused fewer problems for people who are already struggling and vulnerable.


We should also remember that Uxbridge & South Ruislip, which has existed since 2010, has never been anything other than Conservative and that Uxbridge, which was the previous constituency for the majority of U&SR has been Conservative since 1970. That Labour came fewer than 500 votes from winning, despite the ULEZ issue, is a fecking horrendous result for the Tories, whatever they say.

ETA: I should perhaps declare a very slight interest. My company's office is in Uxbridge. But as I go there once in a blue moon and my car is ULEZ compliant, that interest is minimal.

[bagpuss]

And direct evidence:

https://twitter.com/MarcDavenant/status ... rs3dg&s=19

Thanks, I found that same letter quoted elsewhere. Seems pretty clear.

[EACLucifer]

To half heartedly endorse lpms contrarian bollocks (which i generally agree with 57.3% of the time), why is the discourse "ULEZ bad cos i care" rather than "heres a workable strategy to mitigate the effect on the truly vulnerable" ?

I think it's more that we're focussing on the bad to make it clear that it's a bit more bl..dy complicated than that, in response to lpm's somewhat ridiculous conclusion from the by-election result that "English voters, it turns out, are pro pollution."

To be totally clear, I am 100% in favour of the expanded ULEZ zone, I just wish they'd done it/been allowed to do it, in a way that caused fewer problems for people who are already struggling and vulnerable.

This is right on the money, though in my own case I'm not quite so certain of the need for an expanded ULEZ to apply to domestic/self-employed tradesperson vehicles as natural attrition gets rid of a lot of the older ones, and it is only using age as a proxy for emissions anyway.

And that said I'm vastly more sympathetic to those who acknowledge there's a potential for harm and think it should be mitigated than those who are utterly dismissive and bring out the same old ignorant "bUtYOucOuLdJUst" or "itSThEsAMefOreVEryOnE" rot.

Or to really torture an analogy, if I'm struggling along walking with a stick, and someone approaches me saying that I shouldn't be using the stick, my opinion on them will vary quite a bit if;

a) They are offering me another stick, or asking what I could use instead and working to implement it before asking that I stop using my stick

b) They insist everything will be fine and that I'll have everything I need but they still keep trying to take my walking stick away and refuse to give any details of how things will be fine or how I'll have what I need and get hostile if I point out one of the things I need is my walking stick

c) They scoff at the fact I'm walking with a stick and point out everyone else copes without one

[EACLucifer]

And direct evidence:

https://twitter.com/MarcDavenant/status ... rs3dg&s=19

Thanks, I found that same letter quoted elsewhere. Seems pretty clear.

If this is true, then it's terrible political instincts not to make it a major part of the campaign.

[noggins]

Yeah but the typical politician and the average voter is only pretending to give a sh.t about the effect ULEZ has on the disabled .

[EACLucifer]

Yeah but the typical politician and the average voter is only pretending to give a sh.t about the effect ULEZ has on the disabled .

One of the most frustrating things about campaigning for the rights of mobility impaired* people is the speed with which supposedly progressive people rush to presume bad faith when they discover one of their political goals is at odds with the wellbeing of mobility impaired people.

I can work out for myself who's only pretending to give a sh.t about my rights thanks


*Elderly as well as working age disabled

[noggins]

Yeah but the typical politician and the average voter is only pretending to give a sh.t about the effect ULEZ has on the disabled .

One of the most frustrating things about campaigning for the rights of mobility impaired* people is the speed with which supposedly progressive people rush to presume bad faith when they discover one of their political goals is at odds with the wellbeing of mobility impaired people.

I can work out for myself who's only pretending to give a sh.t about my rights thanks

*Elderly as well as working age disabled

Sure, please enlighten us with a Tory Politician who genuinely gives a sh.t.

[Martin Y]

As one who already gives the mayor £12.50 per day I drive my old car into London to work, I imagine Labour looking at the inadequate 7% swing to them compared to the 25-30% swing in the other two by-elections, and then the 73 greater London constituencies, and thinking very, very hard about damage control.

I will not be surprised if a hefty change of direction happens, perhaps involving an exemption for residents' existing cars and vans (maybe time limited to some number of years) and the charge only applying if they buy another vehicle. Wouldn't help me as I'm not a resident but I won't be surprised if they get enough of a shock to go down that route.

Next general election is the biggest open goal in a generation and Labour always finds a way to hoof it over the bar, but I didn't realise it would be ULEZ.

[Grumble]

You can’t blame a policy on the other side if you have adopted it without pledging to reverse it.

[noggins]

As one who already gives the mayor £12.50 per day I drive my old car into London to work,

But if you didn't drive, you'd being paying £10 a day for the train.

[noggins]

The swing figures are a bit misleading. Look at the turnout: its tories staying at home, except for Uxbridge, where 5000 labour voters also stayed away, the f.cking tw.ts.

[EACLucifer]

As one who already gives the mayor £12.50 per day I drive my old car into London to work, I imagine Labour looking at the inadequate 7% swing to them compared to the 25-30% swing in the other two by-elections, and then the 73 greater London constituencies, and thinking very, very hard about damage control.

I will not be surprised if a hefty change of direction happens, perhaps involving an exemption for residents' existing cars and vans (maybe time limited to some number of years) and the charge only applying if they buy another vehicle.

That plus an exemption for blue badge holding non-residents would do an enormous amount to mitigate potential harms, and you don't really need to worry too much about time limiting it as most people do not keep old vehicles running longer than they have to, and if a few do, it's a drop in the ocean compared to all the other vehicles and those few might have good reasons - ie it cost a fortune to adapt to hand controls and drive from wheelchair or whatever.

That said, politically speaking it might just be a good idea to push to drop the proposal for now - natural attrition does a pretty good job of weeding out older vehicles anyway.

[EACLucifer]

Yeah but the typical politician and the average voter is only pretending to give a sh.t about the effect ULEZ has on the disabled .

One of the most frustrating things about campaigning for the rights of mobility impaired* people is the speed with which supposedly progressive people rush to presume bad faith when they discover one of their political goals is at odds with the wellbeing of mobility impaired people.

I can work out for myself who's only pretending to give a sh.t about my rights thanks

*Elderly as well as working age disabled

Sure, please enlighten us with a Tory Politician who genuinely gives a sh.t.

It was a fucktonne of voters, not just Tory politicians, oh mover-of-goalposts

[EACLucifer]

The swing figures are a bit misleading. Look at the turnout: its tories staying at home, except for Uxbridge, where 5000 labour voters also stayed away, the f.cking tw.ts.

So it's not just Tory politicians who disagree with you, then, is it.

I mean you could try and understand people's concerns, or you could just sneer and swear at them

[Martin Y]

But if you didn't drive, you'd being paying £10 a day for the train.

Train about £22. Old car about £25 (half petrol, half ULEZ fee).
On days when daughter isn't working I drive our little city car instead. About £7.50 in petrol, ULEZ exempt.

I seriously considered an electric conversion kit for old car. Then found it would be £20k+. Cheaper to pay the ULEZ fee till I retire.

[Martin Y]

... you don't really need to worry too much about time limiting it as most people do not keep old vehicles running longer than they have to ...

I think a perverse incentive of avoiding £12.50 per day by keeping old junk on the road when it really ought to be scrapped would have a significant distorting effect on people's behaviour.

[EACLucifer]

... you don't really need to worry too much about time limiting it as most people do not keep old vehicles running longer than they have to ...

I think a perverse incentive of avoiding £12.50 per day by keeping old junk on the road when it really ought to be scrapped would have a significant distorting effect on people's behaviour.

Possibly, but I'd expect most replacements not to face the charge due to being younger - the concern tradespeople and mobility impaired people/people who support mobility impaired people have is being forced to replace their vehicles on a short deadline especially if those vehicles have significant embedded cost of adaption. Give it a few years and most of the replacements available will meet the current criteria anyway, so allowing attrition to deal with existing vehicles but requiring new acquisitions to meet standards might be an effective compromise, but then attrition's going to deal with most of the older vehicles fairly soon anyway, and any cars newly coming onto the market will significantly exceed the minimum standards specified.

[Martin Y]

I'd expect most replacements not to face the charge due to being younger.

Good point.

[noggins]

"Vehicles modified for the mobility impaired are exempt until 2030 / [pick a year]". Problem solved.

[lpm]

You all realise that petrol cars < 17 years old are OK, as are diesel vehicles < 8 years?

And that the first version of the ULEZ was introduced 8 years ago for inner London? There's already been enough years for people to prepare. Just as anyone in other urban areas needs to use a bit of foresight if they are considering buying an old diesel.

Also, it's not really acceptable to pay to pollute. For a one-off taking an old diesel into London is OK, but to do it routinely? Especially when there's an alternative less polluting car?

[Gfamily]

"Vehicles modified for the mobility impaired are exempt until 2030 / [pick a year]". Problem solved.

October 2027 for vehicles registered as "'Disabled' and 'Disabled Passenger Vehicle' Tax Class"
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra- ... his-page-1