Forum Topic

Sadiq Khan

So True, a friend put on FBook. Get rid of your old cars to stop people dying. But if you pay Sadiq £12.50 he couldn't careless you can die anyway.

Barbara Stevens ● 664d27 Comments

Mr Carter'The usual ill-informed garbage. It is true that, logically, all polluting vehicles would be banned forthwith, but can you imagine the wails that would go up from the car lobby if that happened? The £12.50 charge is therefore a compromise: in the short term, it is aimed at encouraging a reduction in the use of these vehicles, and in the longer term, to get them removed altogether from the roads.Before people get too misty-eyed over these vehicles, just remember that they are the cause of far too many long-term illnesses and premature deaths. It's a genuine and serious public health issue, and slimy attacks like this on Sadiq Khan are contemptible'.Unfortunately, a Khan sponsored study on the supposed detrimental effect of such cars came up with the following conclusion which the Mayor's henchwoman then tried to suppress - (BBC News)'In a chain of emails between Ms Rodrigues and Prof Kelly, obtained via a Conservative Party Freedom of Information request, the deputy mayor for environment and energy said she was "really disappointed" that Dr Kelly's fellow Imperial academics published a study, suggesting the central London Ulez had a relatively small effect on air pollution.It found that harmful nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations were reduced by less than 3% in inner London nine months after the expansion of the zone.On 16 November 2021 Ms Rodrigues told Prof Kelly she was "deeply concerned about the damage this misleading study is doing, both to our credibility and to low-emission zones as a policy instrument".She asked him if "there is anything you can do or advise to help us set the record straight?".Meaning this is not a serious public health issue.So we taxpayers funded a scientific report, the conclusion of which demolishes the basis of Khan's reasoning for ULEZ expansion, and then political pressure is applied to suppress it to protect the Mayor's credibility.This duplicity is why Khan is 'attacked'.Lucky for him he can drive around London in a very expensive security enhanced 4x4 !And further, is every car owner/driver part of a lobby ?I assume Mr Carter you do not own a car or travel by one.

John Hawkes ● 660d

Ed, so what's you're strategy for renationising those industries? Where is the money going to come from? I believe the utilities should be in public ownership but reversing it isn't easy and there are probably higher priorities for spending taxpayers' money. One could try and nationalise without compensation but that might end up in the courts, and might well have a negative impact on pension investments which would have serious consequences. But I'll be interested to see your solution.

Michael Ixer ● 662d

If regression taxation was the only Thatcher policy they support that could be argued to be the case.However they support a party that believes in water, electricity, gas, and rail privatisation in addition to the Thatcherite policies on housing. That's before of course more privatisation in the NHS. And then we have the wars...Try a blind taste test and see without looking at the colour, red or blue if you can tell the differences between policies and actions.Cleaning up the buses had a huge impact on air quality. But this has nothing to do with ULEZ. But the results are often used to prove ULEZ as being a success.

Ed Robinson ● 662d

The concept of a 'Labour Thatcherite' introduced by an earlier contributor is an amusing one. Presumably this is a reference to Margaret Thatcher's notoriously regressive poll tax. I would prefer to describe these individuals as left-wing ideologues. They are people who, having identified  genuine evils in society - in this case air pollution - attempt to eliminate them with almost religious zeal, sometimes employing extreme measures in pursuit of their aims and discounting any objections as retrogade or worse, if necessary using disingenuous arguments to support their campaign. The argument that  ULEZ cannot discriminate against the poor because poor people don't drive cars is an example of disingenuousness. It is clear that ULEZ is a regressive tax which disproportionately affects those least able to afford it. They may not be the poorest people in London, it is true. But ULEZ is likely to discriminate against  the category identified by Theresa May as 'just managing', people who need their vehicle for business, for example, but cannot afford to buy a new one or pay a surcharge of £12.50 per day. This objection deserves at least to be taken seriously and those who make it should not be summarily dismissed as hypocrites who have no real interest in the poor.

Steven Rose ● 662d

My cousins son was on the News for Wallington and Sutton last night again. He's a Councillor for the area. I was surprised even he said he thought it had all been brought in to early, even though people want clean air. Thing is it's such a large area for residents to all get rid of their cars and even purchase a newer one. Also does this include motor bikes.

Barbara Stevens ● 662d

Selectively quoting again I see!"the poor are the least likely group to even have a car in London""13% in inner London, 30% in outer London "Lots of TFL reports on this but you know that already!

Ed Robinson ● 663d

I expect poor people have more than you Richard, I expect they have a heart.

Barbara Stevens ● 663d

Funny how people pile in with such concern for "the poor and vulnerable" when (a) they don't seem to be so concerned about them at other times and (b) the poor are the least likely group to even have a car in London.

Richard Carter ● 663d

“Available evidence suggests” is about as weak a statement as you can get in a pitch for more funding for research to “optimise design”.BBC London news has featured many stories of the hardship ULEZ imposes on the poorest and most vulnerable in society.  Perhaps it’s worth that pain in Sadiq’s opinion but the Uxbridge by election showed it doesn’t have popular support.  It’s an odd choice for a Labour Mayor to penalise the poorest and heap on pain in a cost of living crisis.

Robert Wheeler ● 663d

And the Mayor only paid £800k for the report.

Andy Pike ● 663d

The Telegraph has been desperately hyping this story but in fact it turns out to be rather a damp squib. Shirley Rodrigues asked the authors of the Lancet study if they could make more of the effects on children, they said no and that was the end of it - and the whole thing was from over 5 years ago! The actual study, in The Lancet Public Health (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30202-0/fulltext) is rather more nuanced than the Telegraph would like: "We found no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs over this period, despite small improvements in air quality in highly polluted urban areas during the implementation of London's LEZ. Interventions that deliver larger reductions in emissions might yield improvements in children's health."In contrast, a more wide-ranging (and much more recent) study from Imperial College (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(23)00120-2/fulltext) found that "Available evidence suggests observable health benefits from schemes restricting private vehicles in cities. Evidence for LEZs is most consistent for cardiovascular disease, whereas evidence for CCZs is restricted to RTIs in London. Further research could usefully investigate how to optimise the design of such schemes to improve health."

Richard Carter ● 663d

Looks like there’s been some subterfuge initiated by the deputy mayor. Getting the Lancet to ‘reword’ the report that said there was ‘no evidence’ ULEZ had made any difference to children’s health. Over to you Mr Carter.

Freddie Francis ● 663d

Do you sneak out in the dark in your old polluting car Richard when nobody can see you. So they can't see all your exhaust fumes billowing out the back. I can just see all your neighbours curtains twitching. Saying there goes the old hypocrite. Do as I say not as I do.

Barbara Stevens ● 663d

"Do we know how many rich people are still driving polluting cars?"10 out of 10 cars according to the Mayor. According to the Mayor, poor people do not drive cars and all cars pollute.It's a regressive tax, just like a lot of other Thaterite taxes. Of course you can use a regressive tax to do some good, but it does not need to be regressive!Put a green label on it and before you known it all the Labour Thatcherites will come out and give it the thumbs up. It doesn't impact them and they don't really care about who it does impact.The worse thing is many do not even know they are Thatcherites.Let's use a bit of imagination and come up with some other green regressive taxes that will be good for the environment:Why not tax people with boilers over 10 years old a £12.50 daily charge? Boilers have improved enormously over time and the older ones are less efficient and pollute more. OK the poor especially the elderly may freeze to death but perhaps it is only 1/10 ratio and it makes green sense does it not? Of course it doesn't! What is the difference between this tax and the ULEZ? How many people do the pro-ULEZ people personally know that drive a non-ULEZ car by choice?If you can't answer then perhaps you should ask why you can't.

Ed Robinson ● 664d

"a system which allows the rich to continue polluting London."Do we know how many rich people are still driving polluting cars?

David Ainsworth ● 664d

The quip is mordant, certainly, but hardly a 'foul' slander. Sadiq has opened himself to a charge of hypocrisy by introducing a system which allows the rich to continue polluting London.  In general I think that financial incentives are better than disincentives, which tend to discriminate against the poor.

Steven Rose ● 664d

"I think the use of the word 'slimy' to describe the opening  quip about Sadiq is a little harsh."Harsh? Really? What the OP said was that "if you pay Sadiq £12.50 he couldn't careless you can die anyway." Foul by any standards, I think, but pretty much standard from that particular source.

Richard Carter ● 664d

"the price of a $12.50 contribution"Dollars, eh?

David Ainsworth ● 664d

I think the use of the word 'slimy' to describe the opening  quip about Sadiq is a little harsh. The quip highlights the problem of social engineering by means of financial disincentives. It is obviously a good idea to phase out polluting vehicles, but the imposition of a charge discriminates against the poor while allowing the rich to continue polluting the environment at the price of a $12.50 contribution to Sadiq's coffers.

Steven Rose ● 664d

Most likely sitting on a nice fat pension so has lost perspective on what it’s like to be less well off or on a state pension. Quite a common affliction but if back it up with sanctimoniousness you get away with bypassing the lack of concern.

Freddie Francis ● 664d

Sue, I think you underestimate the reactions of many businesses, for example the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has found that a third of London businesses will negatively affect their employees, which suggests that the £12.50 charge will have an effect.https://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-former/press-release/2023/07/12/one-third-of-london-businesses-say-ulez-expansion-will-negatively-affect-employees/

Richard Carter ● 664d

But Richard, it doesn't bother you fumes, your always riding your bike in them.

Barbara Stevens ● 664d

@RichardIf you had to pay £12.50 a day would that be enough of a deterrent to make you give up your car? I doubt it. Many others cannot give up theirs for all sorts of reasons e.g. elderly who cannot use public transport for all kinds of reasons, the disabled, self employed trades-men/women who need to carry tools/equipment etc etc However because the charges are unlikely to ever affect you personally I would say that helps you enormously to get all misty-eyed and put on your rose tinted specs whenever Khan and ULEZ is discussed on here.

Sue Hammond ● 664d

If you don’t use your car every day, pay the charge. Much cheaper than upgrading if that’s going to cost you a couple of thousand or more. Especially if you have to resort to finance. For example, if you spend £2000, and you use the car once a week that’s 3yrs. If you own an expensive car that to replace might cost you £10k, then it makes even more sense. Especially as the ‘new’ car will depreciate.

Freddie Francis ● 664d

The usual ill-informed garbage. It is true that, logically, all polluting vehicles would be banned forthwith, but can you imagine the wails that would go up from the car lobby if that happened? The £12.50 charge is therefore a compromise: in the short term, it is aimed at encouraging a reduction in the use of these vehicles, and in the longer term, to get them removed altogether from the roads. Before people get too misty-eyed over these vehicles, just remember that they are the cause of far too many long-term illnesses and premature deaths. It's a genuine and serious public health issue, and slimy attacks like this on Sadiq Khan are contemptible.

Richard Carter ● 664d

such cynicism is unworthy

Clifford Cowell ● 664d

Yeah that sums it up very well.

Sue Hammond ● 664d