The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

1…139140142144145…191

Comments

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,317
    rjsterry said:

    Judging by the level of backlash from within his own party already, this won't even make it to the next King's Speech.


    Though the perpetrators of the backlash are being labelled as 'wets' by the loony wing. Starmer will be enjoying the spectacle of blue on blue action.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,301
    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Sounds like a victory for commons sense and vote winner
    https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/19/rishi-sunak-net-zero-pledges-petrol-car-ban/

    Wasn’t the original plan part of the Tory manifesto at the last GE (that they won)?

    I’m struggling to see how moving away from policies they were elected to carry out is a vote winner.
    I think you're just hoping it isn't. Smart move by Rishi in any event.
    He upset a lot of his own party, Smart move Rishi.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    It must be hard being an unquestioning Party cheerleader when they leave you looking silly for supporting them on the basis of one policy then they rip it up and leave you supporting that instead.

    It’s almost like supporting a bunch of individuals who will say anything to get votes rather than a political Party with a coherent message, ethos and values.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,603
    Given most manufacturers will be focusing on electric anyway, undoing a ban just feels like red meat for a cohort of voters who will likely be too old to drive safely in 2030 anyway.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,119
    Must be a different Sunak from this guy when he was criticising Starmer for not having principles:

    Mr Sunak scotches the idea of a climbdown, saying: “The 2030 target has been our policy for a long time and continues to be. We are not considering a delay to that date.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/29/interview-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-no-principles/
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    They’re going all in on the anti-green stuff off the basis of managing to not lose all of their large majority in a bye election. I suspect they’ll discover there are a lot of people who actually find this stuff important.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    Stevo_666 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It was always daft to try to do it before the rest of Eurup.

    Well quite. No point punishing ourselves trying to be virtuous, especially when there's pressure on the cost of living.
    This isn't the only thing that it was always stupid to do differently to the rest of Eurup. I think "everything else' falls into the same category.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    edited September 2023
    rjsterry said:

    Judging by the level of backlash from within his own party already, this won't even make it to the next King's Speech.

    Not sure, I think it's actually potentially popular, and shows signs of realism. The EV policy at least.

    You will note Labour have only criticised the way it is being leaked rather than the policy itself.

    Labour can certainly blame lack of preparation by the Tories,.so jts a win win for them. Since they are tearing strips of themselves, so can the Tories.

    And if you think about it, if Labour win the election and restore the policy, they'll be saddled with the chaos as the deadline approaches. I can't see that happening.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,532
    First.Aspect said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It was always daft to try to do it before the rest of Eurup.

    Well quite. No point punishing ourselves trying to be virtuous, especially when there's pressure on the cost of living.
    This isn't the only thing that it was always stupid to do differently to the rest of Eurup. I think "everything else' falls into the same category.
    Stevo_666 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It was always daft to try to do it before the rest of Eurup.

    Well quite. No point punishing ourselves trying to be virtuous, especially when there's pressure on the cost of living.
    Keep those fingers jammed tightly in your ears.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,119
    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,137
    I don't see the rush, let the technology, price and infrastructure be correct for the natural adoption of them.

    Musk/Tesla has proved they are viable, the adoption is happening.

    If anything Europe should be worried they're going to soon have a flood of relatively cheap Chinese EVs drastically effecting their own car companies and consequential balance of payments.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,532
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Judging by the level of backlash from within his own party already, this won't even make it to the next King's Speech.

    Not sure, I think it's actually potentially popular, and shows signs of realism. The EV policy at least.

    You will note Labour have only criticised the way it is being leaked rather than the policy itself.

    Labour can certainly blame lack of preparation by the Tories,.so its a win win for them. Since they are tearing strips of themselves, so can the Tories.

    And if you think about it, if Labour win the election and restore the policy, they'll be saddled with the chaos as the deadline approaches. I can't see that happening.
    It's yet more f*** business: confirm a policy; reverse it a couple of months later. See also generation and housing policy. Taking him at face value (🤣) he's said that emission reductions will be made in other ways. So who's going to have to make those extra cuts? And emission reduction *is* the cheaper option. There's no zero cost option.

    Given how much China are going all in on EVs I think it's pretty clear that in a couple of decades ICE cars will be something you only see in museums and steam fairs. If you think finding it a bit difficult to charge your car will be your biggest problem in 10 years time, I think you've underestimated what is happening.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,119
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
    Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,119
    It's definitely not as clear cut as that.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Judging by the level of backlash from within his own party already, this won't even make it to the next King's Speech.

    Not sure, I think it's actually potentially popular, and shows signs of realism. The EV policy at least.

    You will note Labour have only criticised the way it is being leaked rather than the policy itself.

    Labour can certainly blame lack of preparation by the Tories,.so its a win win for them. Since they are tearing strips of themselves, so can the Tories.

    And if you think about it, if Labour win the election and restore the policy, they'll be saddled with the chaos as the deadline approaches. I can't see that happening.
    It's yet more f*** business: confirm a policy; reverse it a couple of months later. See also generation and housing policy. Taking him at face value (🤣) he's said that emission reductions will be made in other ways. So who's going to have to make those extra cuts? And emission reduction *is* the cheaper option. There's no zero cost option.

    Given how much China are going all in on EVs I think it's pretty clear that in a couple of decades ICE cars will be something you only see in museums and steam fairs. If you think finding it a bit difficult to charge your car will be your biggest problem in 10 years time, I think you've underestimated what is happening.
    Everywhere is going to EVs, it is just a question of when. And China is going all in on selling EVs to us.

    There's nothing wrong with the policy per se, but it's been hashed up by the Tories trusting "the market" - which as we know leaves people who are considered less profitable out in the cold. Having been looking for houses for 6 months, I can assure you that "the market" hasn't deemed it necessary to get internet very far out of the towns and cities, and won't do any time soon. Let alone 4G.

    The idiocy is that is that these things are actually national infrastructure worthy of investment in the same way as HS2... ah, wait....
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,317
    You might have thought that the car makers would be happy at the volte face

    Wrong.

    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Judging by the level of backlash from within his own party already, this won't even make it to the next King's Speech.

    Not sure, I think it's actually potentially popular, and shows signs of realism. The EV policy at least.

    You will note Labour have only criticised the way it is being leaked rather than the policy itself.

    Labour can certainly blame lack of preparation by the Tories,.so its a win win for them. Since they are tearing strips of themselves, so can the Tories.

    And if you think about it, if Labour win the election and restore the policy, they'll be saddled with the chaos as the deadline approaches. I can't see that happening.
    It's yet more f*** business: confirm a policy; reverse it a couple of months later. See also generation and housing policy. Taking him at face value (🤣) he's said that emission reductions will be made in other ways. So who's going to have to make those extra cuts? And emission reduction *is* the cheaper option. There's no zero cost option.

    Given how much China are going all in on EVs I think it's pretty clear that in a couple of decades ICE cars will be something you only see in museums and steam fairs. If you think finding it a bit difficult to charge your car will be your biggest problem in 10 years time, I think you've underestimated what is happening.
    Everywhere is going to EVs, it is just a question of when. And China is going all in on selling EVs to us.

    There's nothing wrong with the policy per se, but it's been hashed up by the Tories trusting "the market" - which as we know leaves people who are considered less profitable out in the cold. Having been looking for houses for 6 months, I can assure you that "the market" hasn't deemed it necessary to get internet very far out of the towns and cities, and won't do any time soon. Let alone 4G. It is and will be the same for charging networks.

    The idiocy is that is that these things are actually national infrastructure worthy of investment in the same way as HS2... ah, wait....
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,119
    The whole idea of replacing ICE cars with EVs doing the same thing shows a lack of vision. They have their place, but it isn't everywhere.

    I'm not surprised that car companies want to advance the cause of cars.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    kingstongraham said:

    The whole idea of replacing ICE cars with EVs doing the same thing shows a lack of vision. They have their place, but it isn't everywhere.

    I'm not surprised that car companies want to advance the cause of cars.

    It shows realism. You can try to shift transport modes, but for a lot of people trains and busses will always be perceived as crowded, dirty and inconvenient and it is naive to try to persuade them to to the "right thing" when there's a better alternative.

    The best you can do is make trains etc the better alternative for a lot of travel into and around cities. Which, if younhave much common sense, they often are already.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,532
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
    Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
    It really wouldn't. Despite the bleating of some ageing DJ, the requirements are barely more onerous than requiring landlords to have gas equipment regularly maintained. Big landlords, like HAs are already well ahead of this anyway. No landlord is going to leave a property empty so they'll either carry out the necessary work or sell.

    How much of that cost appears in rents is down to market conditions, which is mainly an issue of supply.

    Agree there should be some matching provision for owner-occupiers. Possibly a requirement that properties for sale meet a minimum energy standard.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    edited September 2023
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
    Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
    Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

    You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

    You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
    You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

    The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

    A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

    You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

    Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,532
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Judging by the level of backlash from within his own party already, this won't even make it to the next King's Speech.

    Not sure, I think it's actually potentially popular, and shows signs of realism. The EV policy at least.

    You will note Labour have only criticised the way it is being leaked rather than the policy itself.

    Labour can certainly blame lack of preparation by the Tories,.so its a win win for them. Since they are tearing strips of themselves, so can the Tories.

    And if you think about it, if Labour win the election and restore the policy, they'll be saddled with the chaos as the deadline approaches. I can't see that happening.
    It's yet more f*** business: confirm a policy; reverse it a couple of months later. See also generation and housing policy. Taking him at face value (🤣) he's said that emission reductions will be made in other ways. So who's going to have to make those extra cuts? And emission reduction *is* the cheaper option. There's no zero cost option.

    Given how much China are going all in on EVs I think it's pretty clear that in a couple of decades ICE cars will be something you only see in museums and steam fairs. If you think finding it a bit difficult to charge your car will be your biggest problem in 10 years time, I think you've underestimated what is happening.
    Everywhere is going to EVs, it is just a question of when. And China is going all in on selling EVs to us.

    There's nothing wrong with the policy per se, but it's been hashed up by the Tories trusting "the market" - which as we know leaves people who are considered less profitable out in the cold. Having been looking for houses for 6 months, I can assure you that "the market" hasn't deemed it necessary to get internet very far out of the towns and cities, and won't do any time soon. Let alone 4G.

    The idiocy is that is that these things are actually national infrastructure worthy of investment in the same way as HS2... ah, wait....
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    Judging by the level of backlash from within his own party already, this won't even make it to the next King's Speech.

    Not sure, I think it's actually potentially popular, and shows signs of realism. The EV policy at least.

    You will note Labour have only criticised the way it is being leaked rather than the policy itself.

    Labour can certainly blame lack of preparation by the Tories,.so its a win win for them. Since they are tearing strips of themselves, so can the Tories.

    And if you think about it, if Labour win the election and restore the policy, they'll be saddled with the chaos as the deadline approaches. I can't see that happening.
    It's yet more f*** business: confirm a policy; reverse it a couple of months later. See also generation and housing policy. Taking him at face value (🤣) he's said that emission reductions will be made in other ways. So who's going to have to make those extra cuts? And emission reduction *is* the cheaper option. There's no zero cost option.

    Given how much China are going all in on EVs I think it's pretty clear that in a couple of decades ICE cars will be something you only see in museums and steam fairs. If you think finding it a bit difficult to charge your car will be your biggest problem in 10 years time, I think you've underestimated what is happening.
    Everywhere is going to EVs, it is just a question of when. And China is going all in on selling EVs to us.

    There's nothing wrong with the policy per se, but it's been hashed up by the Tories trusting "the market" - which as we know leaves people who are considered less profitable out in the cold. Having been looking for houses for 6 months, I can assure you that "the market" hasn't deemed it necessary to get internet very far out of the towns and cities, and won't do any time soon. Let alone 4G.

    The idiocy is that is that these things are actually national infrastructure worthy of investment in the same way as HS2... ah, wait....
    Cost of installation of a piece of infrastructure shared between 10 people has always been easier to justify than the same cost shared between 2, whether that's a Roman aqueduct or fibre broadband. The market seems to be doing just fine.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
    Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
    Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

    You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

    You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
    You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

    The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

    A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

    You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

    Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
    You two are making the mistake of using rational argument. A lot of private landlords will just get out of the market. This will push up prices. It doesn't take much to change sentiment, when being a private landlord is normally not all that worthwhile anyway.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
    Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
    It really wouldn't. Despite the bleating of some ageing DJ, the requirements are barely more onerous than requiring landlords to have gas equipment regularly maintained. Big landlords, like HAs are already well ahead of this anyway. No landlord is going to leave a property empty so they'll either carry out the necessary work or sell.

    How much of that cost appears in rents is down to market conditions, which is mainly an issue of supply.

    Agree there should be some matching provision for owner-occupiers. Possibly a requirement that properties for sale meet a minimum energy standard.
    You know that on the one hand you've said it won't increase rents and on the other hand accepted that people will leave the market, reduce supply and push up rents?

    You (and Pross) are industry specialists. You already know what to do and who to ask. Many landlords aren't going to get to that stage. You can scoff if you want and bang on about this just being the price of being a landlord, but that doesn't change the reality or the consequences.

    And if you've had to deal with any trades as a private individual lately, you would have more empathy. Unregulated, unprofessional, unreliable low quality wankers, on the whole. With no immediate correlation between quality and price. The only decent tradesmen I've found in a decade or more up here haven't been British, but we've sent most of them home.

    Given the choice between doing hand to hand combat woth your average British tradesman, and just cashing in, a lot of landlords will cash in.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,137
    Sadiq Khan has described the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) as the "best ever two-for-one offer", which tackles both air pollution and climate change.

    London's mayor told an event in New York "if you deal with one, you deal with the other".

    But his comments have been challenged by his Conservative and Liberal Democrat opponents.

    They said the recent expansion to outer London is predicted to have a "negligible" impact on emissions.

    That is because many people are changing from diesel to petrol cars, which emit more carbon dioxide.

    Mr Khan told the Concordia business summit that his clear-air zone was "the classic best ever two-for-one offer you will ever receive".

    "The same things that cause climate change, cause air pollution," he explained. "Nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon emissions. If you deal with one, you deal with the other."

    But the Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey told BBC London ahead of his party's conference that Mr Khan's measures were not working.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66853628

    The transatlantic London mayor eco tour.

    Do you agree with the Liberal leader?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
    Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
    Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

    You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

    You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
    You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

    The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

    A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

    You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

    Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
    You two are making the mistake of using rational argument. A lot of private landlords will just get out of the market. This will push up prices. It doesn't take much to change sentiment, when being a private landlord is normally not all that worthwhile anyway.
    Would you want someone with that attitude as your landlord? As I've said on here a lot of times before, there are far too many 'property developers' out there who think it is money for old rope egged on by programmes like Homes Under The Hammer that make it seem like you buy a wreck at auction; chuck in a budget kitchen from Wickes, paint the walls and lay some grey carpets then watch the money roll in. If they aren't prepared to invest in basics like making the house energy efficient it makes you wonder what else they are skimping on.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I think Starmer will be quite pleased if these changes are enacted before he gets in.

    Correct. Battery technology seems to be getting to a tipping point on range (see the recent stories about better electrodes and solid state electrolytes), at which point there will be a quick pivot by the buying public. This won't happen by 2030 though.

    2035 will also allow more time for non city charging to get better.

    I am less clear on the justification for putting back the ban on new gas and oil boilers through.
    The least justifiable is surely removing the requirement for landlords to provide energy efficient homes.
    Nothing is clear cut. That policy would just reduce the available rental accommodation and push rental prices up. Similarly anyone who stays as a landlord would pass on costs. I certainly wouldn't see the justification for distinguishing between rental and owner occupied though.
    Landlords who feel they can't afford to upgrade to a 'C' rating by the December 2028 deadline could apply for an exemption as follows:

    You can show quotes from three separate installers revealing that “the cost of purchasing and installing the cheapest recommended improvement exceeds £3,500 (including VAT)”. You must also provide confirmation that you are “satisfied that the measure(s) exceed this amount”. This is known as a ‘High cost’ Exemption and applies only to domestic property;

    You have already made all of the changes that could have been proposed in order to meet the regulations, and yet the property has still not achieved the desired rating.
    You can prove that a proposed wall or ceiling insulation system would be unsuitable for your building;

    The required improvements to the house in question require the consent of a third party, which has been refused;

    A RICS-qualified surveyor has informed you that any adjustments to the house – including changing the boiler, heating system, insulation or anything else – will reduce the buildings’ value;

    You have only started letting out rented property very recently (in which case, you may be granted a 6 month exemption).

    Hardly onerous especially if my reading of the first point is correct and you can apply if you have to fork out more than £3.5k inc. VAT to get up to a 'C' rating. It's not like 'C' is particularly onerous either. Part of being a landlord is having to spend money on keeping your asset to an acceptable standard, if landlords are leaving the market because of this I would question whether they are goof landlords to begin with.
    You two are making the mistake of using rational argument. A lot of private landlords will just get out of the market. This will push up prices. It doesn't take much to change sentiment, when being a private landlord is normally not all that worthwhile anyway.
    Would you want someone with that attitude as your landlord? As I've said on here a lot of times before, there are far too many 'property developers' out there who think it is money for old rope egged on by programmes like Homes Under The Hammer that make it seem like you buy a wreck at auction; chuck in a budget kitchen from Wickes, paint the walls and lay some grey carpets then watch the money roll in. If they aren't prepared to invest in basics like making the house energy efficient it makes you wonder what else they are skimping on.
    Okay, but you do understand that if those people aren't landlords there will be less supply and higher rents, right?

    I understand the point but also live in the real world.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    focuszing723 said:

    Sadiq Khan has described the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) as the "best ever two-for-one offer", which tackles both air pollution and climate change.

    London's mayor told an event in New York "if you deal with one, you deal with the other".

    But his comments have been challenged by his Conservative and Liberal Democrat opponents.

    They said the recent expansion to outer London is predicted to have a "negligible" impact on emissions.

    That is because many people are changing from diesel to petrol cars, which emit more carbon dioxide.

    Mr Khan told the Concordia business summit that his clear-air zone was "the classic best ever two-for-one offer you will ever receive".

    "The same things that cause climate change, cause air pollution," he explained. "Nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon emissions. If you deal with one, you deal with the other."

    But the Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey told BBC London ahead of his party's conference that Mr Khan's measures were not working.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66853628

    The transatlantic London mayor eco tour.

    Do you agree with the Liberal leader?
    It doesn't help any debate to exaggerate or falsify. I think the link to emissions is made up, unless he is arguing that overall traffic volume will be reduced by ULEZ.

    If not, and if it is nonsense - which I suspect it is - then it will also cast doubt on whatever he says about ULEZ that happens to be true.

    It's another example of false justification IMO. Just tell it how it is and it would get them further.

Categories