LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
It's a dirty game
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.0 -
Which bits do you disagree with?pangolin said:
Surprise surprise, it's a telegraph opinion piece.Stevo_666 said:
I'd be interested to know what you think they will actually do to grow the economy. Remember that means being business friendly.morstar said:
A nuanced yes.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think Labour will win seats mainly because they have won support for a positive agenda?morstar said:So, the press are taking one local issue and extrapolating it as the entire reason the Tories are losing by-elections.
The fact they held Uxbridge which seems to have come down to Ulez is apparently definitive proof that ditching green policies is the way to keep themselves in power.
This is every bit as deluded as the Lib Dem’s claiming they are back because they won a seat.
The Tories are a vacuous shambles from top to bottom that stands for nothing other than reactionary nonsense. Ulez was merely a big enough local issue to limit what was nonetheless a weak result in a safe seat.
The Lib Dem’s will gain seats because the Tories are a shitshow. Not because they’ve won support for a positive agenda.
I don’t think they’ve been inspiring but…
1) They have had a clear message regarding targeting growth (the economy)
2) Even if not inspiring, the message is far clearer that either Con or Lib Dem.
So maybe the best of a bad bunch but streets ahead of Tories. As evidenced by the fact the Tories are still trying to decide what they actually stand for beyond ‘Stop the boats’ which is their current headline policy.
And as for a clear message, we'll this clip from a recent article sums up Starmers flip flopping quite nicely:
"...Starmer who has flip-flopped on practically every policy he has announced since becoming Labour leader in April 2020? The bloke should have shares in Havaianas, for pity’s sake.
He’s gone from trying to reverse the referendum result to signalling that he now backs Brexit; supporting free movement to calling for stricter border controls; advocating the re-nationalisation of all our utilities to implicitly ruling it out; calling for an end to outsourcing in the NHS only to suggest the private sector has been “underused”. He appears to have rowed back on his pledge to scrap tuition fees and Universal Credit, and can’t seem to decide whether he supports HS2 or not. He seems equally unsure on the question of whether a woman can have a penis.
Meanwhile, he insists that he is “not a fan” of Just Stop Oil and says “their actions are wrong”, but his party continues to trouser large donations from one of its key funders, Dale Vince.
He’s called for both more borrowing and less, insisted Labour will cut council tax, only for Labour-run local authorities to hike it, and contradicted his own fiscal rules by pledging to spend £28 billion a year on a Green Prosperity Plan, only for the party to then “postpone” the scheme.
His plan to stop new drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea has enraged his union paymasters, amid claims it will cost tens of thousands of jobs – not to mention completely kybosh our energy needs. And he’s at war with the Left of his party after ditching many of the pledges that propelled him to power in the first place. "
You sure about that second point?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash. Especially in Selby. 😉kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.0 -
Since when was Selby anywhere near outer London?webboo said:Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash. Especially in Selby. 😉kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Are you getting confused with Uxbridge....?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.0 -
Yebbut, is all #toryscum GINO policy innit. Do as we say, implement, else we hold back funds for TfL. And we bar the old diesel scrapage payback scheme. DYOR. Grant Shapps etc.
What a f-ed country in which we live.0 -
kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
ULEZ, I believe.0 -
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Several but you have no interest in a discussion so I cba to pick it apart.Stevo_666 said:
Which bits do you disagree with?pangolin said:
Surprise surprise, it's a telegraph opinion piece.Stevo_666 said:
I'd be interested to know what you think they will actually do to grow the economy. Remember that means being business friendly.morstar said:
A nuanced yes.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think Labour will win seats mainly because they have won support for a positive agenda?morstar said:So, the press are taking one local issue and extrapolating it as the entire reason the Tories are losing by-elections.
The fact they held Uxbridge which seems to have come down to Ulez is apparently definitive proof that ditching green policies is the way to keep themselves in power.
This is every bit as deluded as the Lib Dem’s claiming they are back because they won a seat.
The Tories are a vacuous shambles from top to bottom that stands for nothing other than reactionary nonsense. Ulez was merely a big enough local issue to limit what was nonetheless a weak result in a safe seat.
The Lib Dem’s will gain seats because the Tories are a shitshow. Not because they’ve won support for a positive agenda.
I don’t think they’ve been inspiring but…
1) They have had a clear message regarding targeting growth (the economy)
2) Even if not inspiring, the message is far clearer that either Con or Lib Dem.
So maybe the best of a bad bunch but streets ahead of Tories. As evidenced by the fact the Tories are still trying to decide what they actually stand for beyond ‘Stop the boats’ which is their current headline policy.
And as for a clear message, we'll this clip from a recent article sums up Starmers flip flopping quite nicely:
"...Starmer who has flip-flopped on practically every policy he has announced since becoming Labour leader in April 2020? The bloke should have shares in Havaianas, for pity’s sake.
He’s gone from trying to reverse the referendum result to signalling that he now backs Brexit; supporting free movement to calling for stricter border controls; advocating the re-nationalisation of all our utilities to implicitly ruling it out; calling for an end to outsourcing in the NHS only to suggest the private sector has been “underused”. He appears to have rowed back on his pledge to scrap tuition fees and Universal Credit, and can’t seem to decide whether he supports HS2 or not. He seems equally unsure on the question of whether a woman can have a penis.
Meanwhile, he insists that he is “not a fan” of Just Stop Oil and says “their actions are wrong”, but his party continues to trouser large donations from one of its key funders, Dale Vince.
He’s called for both more borrowing and less, insisted Labour will cut council tax, only for Labour-run local authorities to hike it, and contradicted his own fiscal rules by pledging to spend £28 billion a year on a Green Prosperity Plan, only for the party to then “postpone” the scheme.
His plan to stop new drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea has enraged his union paymasters, amid claims it will cost tens of thousands of jobs – not to mention completely kybosh our energy needs. And he’s at war with the Left of his party after ditching many of the pledges that propelled him to power in the first place. "
You sure about that second point?- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Compared to the rest of London, and according to the local council, most of it.Stevo_666 said:
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/1135/Air0 -
So it magically stops working when you cross out of the zone? 😆Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
I know you don't like it but has already been proven to work.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Christ when you get your next bonus buy yourself a sense of humour.Stevo_666 said:
Since when was Selby anywhere near outer London?webboo said:Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash. Especially in Selby. 😉kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Are you getting confused with Uxbridge....?0 -
Stevo, detail and idiology0
-
Well here's me trying to get you to engage in the debate and you're bottling out of it straight away.pangolin said:
Several but you have no interest in a discussion so I cba to pick it apart.Stevo_666 said:
Which bits do you disagree with?pangolin said:
Surprise surprise, it's a telegraph opinion piece.Stevo_666 said:
I'd be interested to know what you think they will actually do to grow the economy. Remember that means being business friendly.morstar said:
A nuanced yes.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think Labour will win seats mainly because they have won support for a positive agenda?morstar said:So, the press are taking one local issue and extrapolating it as the entire reason the Tories are losing by-elections.
The fact they held Uxbridge which seems to have come down to Ulez is apparently definitive proof that ditching green policies is the way to keep themselves in power.
This is every bit as deluded as the Lib Dem’s claiming they are back because they won a seat.
The Tories are a vacuous shambles from top to bottom that stands for nothing other than reactionary nonsense. Ulez was merely a big enough local issue to limit what was nonetheless a weak result in a safe seat.
The Lib Dem’s will gain seats because the Tories are a shitshow. Not because they’ve won support for a positive agenda.
I don’t think they’ve been inspiring but…
1) They have had a clear message regarding targeting growth (the economy)
2) Even if not inspiring, the message is far clearer that either Con or Lib Dem.
So maybe the best of a bad bunch but streets ahead of Tories. As evidenced by the fact the Tories are still trying to decide what they actually stand for beyond ‘Stop the boats’ which is their current headline policy.
And as for a clear message, we'll this clip from a recent article sums up Starmers flip flopping quite nicely:
"...Starmer who has flip-flopped on practically every policy he has announced since becoming Labour leader in April 2020? The bloke should have shares in Havaianas, for pity’s sake.
He’s gone from trying to reverse the referendum result to signalling that he now backs Brexit; supporting free movement to calling for stricter border controls; advocating the re-nationalisation of all our utilities to implicitly ruling it out; calling for an end to outsourcing in the NHS only to suggest the private sector has been “underused”. He appears to have rowed back on his pledge to scrap tuition fees and Universal Credit, and can’t seem to decide whether he supports HS2 or not. He seems equally unsure on the question of whether a woman can have a penis.
Meanwhile, he insists that he is “not a fan” of Just Stop Oil and says “their actions are wrong”, but his party continues to trouser large donations from one of its key funders, Dale Vince.
He’s called for both more borrowing and less, insisted Labour will cut council tax, only for Labour-run local authorities to hike it, and contradicted his own fiscal rules by pledging to spend £28 billion a year on a Green Prosperity Plan, only for the party to then “postpone” the scheme.
His plan to stop new drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea has enraged his union paymasters, amid claims it will cost tens of thousands of jobs – not to mention completely kybosh our energy needs. And he’s at war with the Left of his party after ditching many of the pledges that propelled him to power in the first place. "
You sure about that second point?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What's this got to do with the debate Shirley? Having a bad day are we?shirley_basso said:Stevo, detail and idiology
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Don't worry, I was laughing - at youwebboo said:
Christ when you get your next bonus buy yourself a sense of humour.Stevo_666 said:
Since when was Selby anywhere near outer London?webboo said:Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash. Especially in Selby. 😉kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Are you getting confused with Uxbridge....?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How much difference does it really make in the outer reaches of Greater London?rjsterry said:
So it magically stops working when you cross out of the zone? 😆Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
I know you don't like it but has already been proven to work."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Can't see anything in that about how Hillingdon fares relatively. Anyway, the local electorate had their say last week and they didn't seem to think it was a pressing issue.kingstongraham said:
Compared to the rest of London, and according to the local council, most of it.Stevo_666 said:
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/1135/Air"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm sure you can use Google.Stevo_666 said:
Can't see anything in that about how Hillingdon fares relatively. Anyway, the local electorate had their say last week and they didn't seem to think it was a pressing issue.kingstongraham said:
Compared to the rest of London, and according to the local council, most of it.Stevo_666 said:
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/1135/Air
If you are simplistic and think that the Conservative voters were against it and the Labour, Green voters were fine with it, they seem undecided on the whole.
I had a leaflet from a conservative saying that Khan wanted me to pay £4,500 a year to drive my car, which is not true, so it's entirely possible lots of people wrongly thought that it would apply to them.
Again, what is the Conservatives policy to improve air quality?0 -
You're making a broad assumption that it needs improving everywhere. While I can see the case for City centres, outside of those it is very debatable. The voters of Uxbridge and Hillingdon certainly thought so and I'm sure most people can use Google to see what the position is.kingstongraham said:
I'm sure you can use Google.Stevo_666 said:
Can't see anything in that about how Hillingdon fares relatively. Anyway, the local electorate had their say last week and they didn't seem to think it was a pressing issue.kingstongraham said:
Compared to the rest of London, and according to the local council, most of it.Stevo_666 said:
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/1135/Air
If you are simplistic and think that the Conservative voters were against it and the Labour, Green voters were fine with it, they seem undecided on the whole.
I had a leaflet from a conservative saying that Khan wanted me to pay £4,500 a year to drive my car, which is not true, so it's entirely possible lots of people wrongly thought that it would apply to them.
Again, what is the Conservatives policy to improve air quality?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Can you make your point again in a format that we can understand?orraloon said:Yebbut, is all #toryscum GINO policy innit. Do as we say, implement, else we hold back funds for TfL. And we bar the old diesel scrapage payback scheme. DYOR. Grant Shapps etc.
What a f-ed country in which we live."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
@morstar : still sure that Labour message is clear?Stevo_666 said:
I'd be interested to know what you think they will actually do to grow the economy. Remember that means being business friendly.morstar said:
A nuanced yes.Stevo_666 said:
Do you think Labour will win seats mainly because they have won support for a positive agenda?morstar said:So, the press are taking one local issue and extrapolating it as the entire reason the Tories are losing by-elections.
The fact they held Uxbridge which seems to have come down to Ulez is apparently definitive proof that ditching green policies is the way to keep themselves in power.
This is every bit as deluded as the Lib Dem’s claiming they are back because they won a seat.
The Tories are a vacuous shambles from top to bottom that stands for nothing other than reactionary nonsense. Ulez was merely a big enough local issue to limit what was nonetheless a weak result in a safe seat.
The Lib Dem’s will gain seats because the Tories are a shitshow. Not because they’ve won support for a positive agenda.
I don’t think they’ve been inspiring but…
1) They have had a clear message regarding targeting growth (the economy)
2) Even if not inspiring, the message is far clearer that either Con or Lib Dem.
So maybe the best of a bad bunch but streets ahead of Tories. As evidenced by the fact the Tories are still trying to decide what they actually stand for beyond ‘Stop the boats’ which is their current headline policy.
And as for a clear message, we'll this clip from a recent article sums up Starmers flip flopping quite nicely:
"...Starmer who has flip-flopped on practically every policy he has announced since becoming Labour leader in April 2020? The bloke should have shares in Havaianas, for pity’s sake.
He’s gone from trying to reverse the referendum result to signalling that he now backs Brexit; supporting free movement to calling for stricter border controls; advocating the re-nationalisation of all our utilities to implicitly ruling it out; calling for an end to outsourcing in the NHS only to suggest the private sector has been “underused”. He appears to have rowed back on his pledge to scrap tuition fees and Universal Credit, and can’t seem to decide whether he supports HS2 or not. He seems equally unsure on the question of whether a woman can have a penis.
Meanwhile, he insists that he is “not a fan” of Just Stop Oil and says “their actions are wrong”, but his party continues to trouser large donations from one of its key funders, Dale Vince.
He’s called for both more borrowing and less, insisted Labour will cut council tax, only for Labour-run local authorities to hike it, and contradicted his own fiscal rules by pledging to spend £28 billion a year on a Green Prosperity Plan, only for the party to then “postpone” the scheme.
His plan to stop new drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea has enraged his union paymasters, amid claims it will cost tens of thousands of jobs – not to mention completely kybosh our energy needs. And he’s at war with the Left of his party after ditching many of the pledges that propelled him to power in the first place. "
You sure about that second point?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We'll find out. Plenty of orange circles on the map even on a windy, generally low pollution day. Especially around Uxbridge.Stevo_666 said:
How much difference does it really make in the outer reaches of Greater London?rjsterry said:
So it magically stops working when you cross out of the zone? 😆Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
I know you don't like it but has already been proven to work.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Conservative Hillingdon Council say it does.Stevo_666 said:
You're making a broad assumption that it needs improving everywhere. While I can see the case for City centres, outside of those it is very debatable. The voters of Uxbridge and Hillingdon certainly thought so and I'm sure most people can use Google to see what the position is.kingstongraham said:
I'm sure you can use Google.Stevo_666 said:
Can't see anything in that about how Hillingdon fares relatively. Anyway, the local electorate had their say last week and they didn't seem to think it was a pressing issue.kingstongraham said:
Compared to the rest of London, and according to the local council, most of it.Stevo_666 said:
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/1135/Air
If you are simplistic and think that the Conservative voters were against it and the Labour, Green voters were fine with it, they seem undecided on the whole.
I had a leaflet from a conservative saying that Khan wanted me to pay £4,500 a year to drive my car, which is not true, so it's entirely possible lots of people wrongly thought that it would apply to them.
Again, what is the Conservatives policy to improve air quality?0 -
It's not a broad assumption: there's plenty of data to support it. There are monitoring stations across greater London. The debate's been had. The law's been implemented. The acceptable levels - 40micrograms/m3 for NO2 - have been set years ago by central government. Every borough breaches WHO recommended limits of 10mictograms/m3 and 14 boroughs breach the 40microgram legal limit. Individual deaths have been directly linked to London air quality.Stevo_666 said:
You're making a broad assumption that it needs improving everywhere. While I can see the case for City centres, outside of those it is very debatable. The voters of Uxbridge and Hillingdon certainly thought so and I'm sure most people can use Google to see what the position is.kingstongraham said:
I'm sure you can use Google.Stevo_666 said:
Can't see anything in that about how Hillingdon fares relatively. Anyway, the local electorate had their say last week and they didn't seem to think it was a pressing issue.kingstongraham said:
Compared to the rest of London, and according to the local council, most of it.Stevo_666 said:
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/1135/Air
If you are simplistic and think that the Conservative voters were against it and the Labour, Green voters were fine with it, they seem undecided on the whole.
I had a leaflet from a conservative saying that Khan wanted me to pay £4,500 a year to drive my car, which is not true, so it's entirely possible lots of people wrongly thought that it would apply to them.
Again, what is the Conservatives policy to improve air quality?
Just because that has passed you by doesn't mean it's not the case.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The two insanely massive losses for the Conservatives seem to have been forgotten. Both were at least 19,000 majorities for the Tories, now at least 5,000 for the non Tory.0
-
The worst air quality in Wales was a row of houses on the outskirts of a small valley town. It was so bad the Welsh Government did a CPO and demolished them.Stevo_666 said:
You're making a broad assumption that it needs improving everywhere. While I can see the case for City centres, outside of those it is very debatable. The voters of Uxbridge and Hillingdon certainly thought so and I'm sure most people can use Google to see what the position is.kingstongraham said:
I'm sure you can use Google.Stevo_666 said:
Can't see anything in that about how Hillingdon fares relatively. Anyway, the local electorate had their say last week and they didn't seem to think it was a pressing issue.kingstongraham said:
Compared to the rest of London, and according to the local council, most of it.Stevo_666 said:
When you say worst air quality, compared to what? And how much is caused by cars? Give is some evidence on both points please.kingstongraham said:
Uxbridge has the worst air quality, what's the Conservatives' solution?Stevo_666 said:
Makes sod all difference to air quality in outer London, hence the backlash.kingstongraham said:
Clearly nonsense - it is expected to raise zero in a few years time. The correct conspiracy theory would be that the infrastructure could be used for road pricing in the future.Stevo_666 said:
Agree on your first point. It's about bashing motorists and filling the black hole in tfl's finances - and the backlash is underway as we can see.kingstongraham said:Ulez has already changed behaviour, as Stevo has previously pointed out, and it is not about climate change at all.
The Labour candidate insanely tried to position himself as anti ulez expansion, so it is no wonder the green vote didn't all go in that direction.
On your second point, I think the Labour candidate correctly anticipated that the ULEZ issue could cost him the win. Which it did anyway, so he was right.
It's a way to help meet centrally mandated pollution targets. I don't know what the Conservative alternative is, do you? I guess it's just keep having bad air.
Then ask the voters of Uxbridge what they want to do.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/1135/Air
If you are simplistic and think that the Conservative voters were against it and the Labour, Green voters were fine with it, they seem undecided on the whole.
I had a leaflet from a conservative saying that Khan wanted me to pay £4,500 a year to drive my car, which is not true, so it's entirely possible lots of people wrongly thought that it would apply to them.
Again, what is the Conservatives policy to improve air quality?0 -
But the ULEZ!kingstongraham said:The two insanely massive losses for the Conservatives seem to have been forgotten. Both were at least 19,000 majorities for the Tories, now at least 5,000 for the non Tory.
This is like when they lost Chesham to a ridiculous Nimby campaign from the LDs and convinced themselves if they scrapped housing targets this would turn things around.
How's that going I wonder?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
