LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah but in Uxbridge Labour got smashed by the Tories who turned a 7200 majority into a majority of less than 500. It was a catastrophe for Labour and shows how unpopular they are.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.
0 -
So, this is a final decision which can never be reviewed orrjsterry said:
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.
changed? A bit like Brexit then?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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 -
That probably applies more to people who think that getting a section of the population in and around greater London to pay £12.50 a day to tfl will magically make their air pure.Pross said:
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Don’t try and get me on your waltzer because I’m not going round in circles on this.Stevo_666 said:
@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?
It’s clearer than the other parties is what I said and still do.
The above is 3rd party interpretations of moves made in an opinion piece with a clear agenda.
E.g. Brexit, he’s taken exactly the same position as you. Was opposed to it but now will work with it. Seems pragmatic to me.
He’s already saying internally to his own party that there are going to be difficult decisions and we can’t just reverse everything we don’t like.
Still sounds like the most credible PM to me with a clearer agenda than all the other leaders.0 -
I know you’re really not that obtuse that you don’t understand the intention of the ULEZ but I’ll spell it out anyway. The £12.50 is intended as a deterrent to stop people using their car unnecessarily and take less polluting options.Stevo_666 said:
That probably applies more to people who think that getting a section of the population in and around greater London to pay £12.50 a day to tfl will magically make their air pure.Pross said:
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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 -
Tfl don't want anyone to pay them £12.50.0
-
Erm if you say so. What's to debate? Are you suggesting NO2 is not all that toxic or that the recorded levels are faked?Stevo_666 said:
So, this is a final decision which can never be reviewed orrjsterry said:
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.
changed? A bit like Brexit then?
Could they be handling the scrappage scheme better? Probably but I can't believe you want to use public money to buy a few people a new car or van. If it makes any difference it's not just cars. Wood burners are *much* worse for particulate pollution, and are next on the prohibited list.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's quite likely that if the Labour candidate had not opposed ulez, he'd have won. What would that have said?
It's not really straightforward, but still a big swing away from the seat that the actual prime minister held at the last election.0 -
It would seem quite a lot of people don't have a lot of choice.kingstongraham said:Tfl don't want anyone to pay them £12.50.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So it can be reviewed and changed - thank you. Would appear that not enough people think there is a big problem to be fixed and just because you think it's a big problem doesn't necessarily mean that it is (especially as you go further out of the city: if the wasn't the case, they would impose it nationwide).rjsterry said:
Erm if you say so. What's to debate? Are you suggesting NO2 is not all that toxic or that the recorded levels are faked?Stevo_666 said:
So, this is a final decision which can never be reviewed orrjsterry said:
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.
changed? A bit like Brexit then?
Could they be handling the scrappage scheme better? Probably but I can't believe you want to use public money to buy a few people a new car or van. If it makes any difference it's not just cars. Wood burners are *much* worse for particulate pollution, and are next on the prohibited list."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So why all the opposition to it then? Do you think all the people and councils opposing it don't have a point or a legitimate concern?Pross said:
I know you’re really not that obtuse that you don’t understand the intention of the ULEZ but I’ll spell it out anyway. The £12.50 is intended as a deterrent to stop people using their car unnecessarily and take less polluting options.Stevo_666 said:
That probably applies more to people who think that getting a section of the population in and around greater London to pay £12.50 a day to tfl will magically make their air pure.Pross said:
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Because people have got institutionalised into being able to use their car when they want without thinking if it’s necessary and populism rules in politics (see also planning applications being turned down by Councillors against officer recommendations/ their own policy documents as soon as someone objects).Stevo_666 said:
So why all the opposition to it then? Do you think all the people and councils opposing it don't have a point or a legitimate concern?Pross said:
I know you’re really not that obtuse that you don’t understand the intention of the ULEZ but I’ll spell it out anyway. The £12.50 is intended as a deterrent to stop people using their car unnecessarily and take less polluting options.Stevo_666 said:
That probably applies more to people who think that getting a section of the population in and around greater London to pay £12.50 a day to tfl will magically make their air pure.Pross said:
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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 -
So even stevo thinks the only reason anyone would vote conservative is this one policy in this one place.0
-
Tbf, the policy was started by the tories.kingstongraham said:So even stevo thinks the only reason anyone would vote conservative is this one policy in this one place.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Or because there aren't very good alternatives? Or maybe they need their 4 wheeled transport for various reasons, such as trades people who need to transport their tools etc.Pross said:
Because people have got institutionalised into being able to use their car when they want without thinking if it’s necessary and populism rules in politics (see also planning applications being turned down by Councillors against officer recommendations/ their own policy documents as soon as someone objects).Stevo_666 said:
So why all the opposition to it then? Do you think all the people and councils opposing it don't have a point or a legitimate concern?Pross said:
I know you’re really not that obtuse that you don’t understand the intention of the ULEZ but I’ll spell it out anyway. The £12.50 is intended as a deterrent to stop people using their car unnecessarily and take less polluting options.Stevo_666 said:
That probably applies more to people who think that getting a section of the population in and around greater London to pay £12.50 a day to tfl will magically make their air pure.Pross said:
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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?
You are coming quite close to the condescending remainer line of saying that people with a different view to yours are a bit thick."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You're not a very good mind reader.kingstongraham said:So even stevo thinks the only reason anyone would vote conservative is this one policy in this one place.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So you don't think they won a previously very safe seat because of it? It seems to be all you're mentioning.Stevo_666 said:
You're not a very good mind reader.kingstongraham said:So even stevo thinks the only reason anyone would vote conservative is this one policy in this one place.
0 -
It’s bloody Uxbridge not the middle of the Kielder forest. What percentage of those driving do you think are tradesmen who are carrying tools? There are kids getting seriously I’ll sue to air quality, doing something to stop that sounds like common sense to me.Stevo_666 said:
Or because there aren't very good alternatives? Or maybe they need their 4 wheeled transport for various reasons, such as trades people who need to transport their tools etc.Pross said:
Because people have got institutionalised into being able to use their car when they want without thinking if it’s necessary and populism rules in politics (see also planning applications being turned down by Councillors against officer recommendations/ their own policy documents as soon as someone objects).Stevo_666 said:
So why all the opposition to it then? Do you think all the people and councils opposing it don't have a point or a legitimate concern?Pross said:
I know you’re really not that obtuse that you don’t understand the intention of the ULEZ but I’ll spell it out anyway. The £12.50 is intended as a deterrent to stop people using their car unnecessarily and take less polluting options.Stevo_666 said:
That probably applies more to people who think that getting a section of the population in and around greater London to pay £12.50 a day to tfl will magically make their air pure.Pross said:
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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?
You are coming quite close to the condescending remainer line of saying that people with a different view to yours are a bit thick.0 -
-
I was on the M25 today and they reduced the speed to 60 for a portion of it because of emissions, according to the board.
That's not your idea of fun now is it, Stevo?0 -
That's not what you said above.kingstongraham said:
So you don't think they won a previously very safe seat because of it? It seems to be all you're mentioning.Stevo_666 said:
You're not a very good mind reader.kingstongraham said:So even stevo thinks the only reason anyone would vote conservative is this one policy in this one place.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What's that got to do with the debate here?rick_chasey said:I was on the M25 today and they reduced the speed to 60 for a portion of it because of emissions, according to the board.
That's not your idea of fun now is it, Stevo?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That was must one example. Read my posts properly before spouting off.Pross said:
It’s bloody Uxbridge not the middle of the Kielder forest. What percentage of those driving do you think are tradesmen who are carrying tools? There are kids getting seriously I’ll sue to air quality, doing something to stop that sounds like common sense to me.Stevo_666 said:
Or because there aren't very good alternatives? Or maybe they need their 4 wheeled transport for various reasons, such as trades people who need to transport their tools etc.Pross said:
Because people have got institutionalised into being able to use their car when they want without thinking if it’s necessary and populism rules in politics (see also planning applications being turned down by Councillors against officer recommendations/ their own policy documents as soon as someone objects).Stevo_666 said:
So why all the opposition to it then? Do you think all the people and councils opposing it don't have a point or a legitimate concern?Pross said:
I know you’re really not that obtuse that you don’t understand the intention of the ULEZ but I’ll spell it out anyway. The £12.50 is intended as a deterrent to stop people using their car unnecessarily and take less polluting options.Stevo_666 said:
That probably applies more to people who think that getting a section of the population in and around greater London to pay £12.50 a day to tfl will magically make their air pure.Pross said:
Because they’re unable to look at the bigger picture? It obviously wasn’t an issue to the thousands who did change their vote though.Stevo_666 said:
Maybe, but I was talking the views of the voters. They rejected ULEZ - why do you think that is?kingstongraham said:
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?
You are coming quite close to the condescending remainer line of saying that people with a different view to yours are a bit thick."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?rick_chasey said:They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?
Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Maybe they could exclude Hillingdon except around the m4 and heathrow, but put the charge for driving a polluting vehicle there up to £50.0
-
What are you waffling on about? People can think what they like but the required air quality levels are a matter of law, not your or my opinion. Laws can be reviewed and changed of course. If you want to change the ULEZ expansion you'll need to:Stevo_666 said:
So it can be reviewed and changed - thank you. Would appear that not enough people think there is a big problem to be fixed and just because you think it's a big problem doesn't necessarily mean that it is (especially as you go further out of the city: if the wasn't the case, they would impose it nationwide).rjsterry said:
Erm if you say so. What's to debate? Are you suggesting NO2 is not all that toxic or that the recorded levels are faked?Stevo_666 said:
So, this is a final decision which can never be reviewed orrjsterry said:
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.
changed? A bit like Brexit then?
Could they be handling the scrappage scheme better? Probably but I can't believe you want to use public money to buy a few people a new car or van. If it makes any difference it's not just cars. Wood burners are *much* worse for particulate pollution, and are next on the prohibited list.
1. Move back to London.
2. Vote for and persuade enough other people to vote for a different Mayor.
3. Lobby that mayor to reverse a regulation that will have been in place for a year.
I assume you're not moving back to London. 2. Looks extremely unlikely at present.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?Stevo_666 said:
We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?rick_chasey said:They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?
Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.0 -
Given the length of your post, you're the one waffling.rjsterry said:
What are you waffling on about? People can think what they like but the required air quality levels are a matter of law, not your or my opinion. Laws can be reviewed and changed of course. If you want to change the ULEZ expansion you'll need to:Stevo_666 said:
So it can be reviewed and changed - thank you. Would appear that not enough people think there is a big problem to be fixed and just because you think it's a big problem doesn't necessarily mean that it is (especially as you go further out of the city: if the wasn't the case, they would impose it nationwide).rjsterry said:
Erm if you say so. What's to debate? Are you suggesting NO2 is not all that toxic or that the recorded levels are faked?Stevo_666 said:
So, this is a final decision which can never be reviewed orrjsterry said:
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.
changed? A bit like Brexit then?
Could they be handling the scrappage scheme better? Probably but I can't believe you want to use public money to buy a few people a new car or van. If it makes any difference it's not just cars. Wood burners are *much* worse for particulate pollution, and are next on the prohibited list.
1. Move back to London.
2. Vote for and persuade enough other people to vote for a different Mayor.
3. Lobby that mayor to reverse a regulation that will have been in place for a year.
I assume you're not moving back to London. 2. Looks extremely unlikely at present.
I dont really have any skin in the game having moved to somewhere nicer, but based on that happened in Uxbridge there seems to be an appetite to change things in this area.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
