Forum Topic

"And another thing: Sadiq is sticking to his guns .."“zero emission zone” in the heart of the capital have been dropped"https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sadiq-khan-mark-harper-london-government-financial-times-b1103583.htmlSo much for him sticking to his guns..Examining Richard's claim in detail - the logic seems to be:1) Poor air quality kills2) Let's get rid of the oldest vehicles which do not have a certificate from the manufacturer that says at time of production they met an EURO standard.3) All vehicles that do meet the relevant Euro standard shall be deemed clean - no charge4) A £12:50 per day charge is the best way to implement 25) Poorer people are subjected to more pollution so poorer people should pay the tax whilst the well off avoid itSo what starts as an excuse to help pooper people turns into a regressive tax on poorer people.ULEZ compliant vehicles produce nothing but clean air.Why would anyone with any sense make the jump from 1) to 5) ?Should we charge poorer people a flat rate regressive tax for the NHS too - besides the existing prescription charge that is?The real problem with Richard is that he doesn't accept poorer people own old cars.It doesn't fall into his view of reality therefore it is not real.But worse he is perpetuating the myth that ULEZ compliant means clean despite the work by the True Initiative that says otherwise.There used to be a link on the TFL website but they seemed to have now removed it.Must not let truth get in the way of the messaging that ULEZ compliant equal Clean Air!https://www.trueinitiative.org/Removed: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/cleaning-londons-vehicles/cleaner-vehicle-checker

Ed Robinson ● 647d

Too much here to waste time on; I’ll also combine the two posts.You disagree with Greenpeace because you don’t, evidently, you don’t like them but agree with the Spectator because you do. I believe this is conformation bias and you’ll excuse me if I ignore it.“2) Khan can't be criticised because he is a Muslim.” Not what I said at all, as you know full well, which was that “you [I] can't help feeling that much of the opposition to him is based on covert or overt islamophobia:” it’s a well-known arguing tactic to so distort what another has said in order to attack it. That is frankly dishonest. “He is also a politician who will jump on any bandwagon to get elected” Ha ha, you’ve destroyed your own case, because if he were a bandwagon jumper he wouldn’t have chosen a controversial policy.“So if someone has a stroke near the North circular then really it was caused by poor air quality ?  Who are Greenpeace modellers ?”There are no Greenpeace modellers (it’s the academics at Imperial College etc), and you’ve completely (no doubt deliberately) misunderstood the argument here.“Of course we are breathing today's air.  Childish point.” Not childish at all: previous levels of pollution have no bearing on today’s levels, so whether or not they were higher or lower is completely irrelevant.“'poorer Londoners are the most likely to be affected by pollution than the better-off' Why ?”Because the most deprived communities of London are more likely to live in the most polluted areas https://shorturl.at/tuSV5Is that the best you can do, a sad combination of distortions and misunderstandings? I think this thread has gone on and on for far too long, and I am giving up on it. I suggest you do the same and find something else to be wrong about.

Richard Carter ● 647d

This thread seems endless, with the same points being made and answered for ever. But this post does need an answer, and I'll keep it brief. "1) Khan claims 4,000 Londoners die of air pollution  every year and so Ulez must be implemented. BUT Air pollution has been mentioned in only ONE death certificate in 4 years."This claim is based om a common misunderstanding; it is dealt with by a Greenpeace fact check. Put simply, the figure doesn't mean that anybody has “air pollution” as a cause of death on their death certificate. Nobody has died exclusively from air pollution: it's based on mathematical modelling. See https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/03/06/air-pollution-cause-40000-deaths-every-year-fact-check-linked/amp/"2)Nationally NO2 levels have fallen 75% over the last three decades thanks to cleaner car engines.and3)Air in London has not been purer since long before the Industrial revolution"This may be true but it's completely irrelevant! We're breathing the polluted air now, not what was in the atmosphere 10, 100 or 1,000 years ago."4)Khan claims in a study his office published that NO2 levels in the first 6 months of Ulez fell by 36% since 2017."Again, clearly dealt with elsewhere and I don't intend to extend this response yet further: see. for example, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/and https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-will-ulez-expansion-to-outer-london-improve-air-qualityFinally, the central issue: whether "Khan should be concerned that he is imposing a highly regressive tax on low-income Londoners without first making sure the benefits would outweigh the costs."Once again, we find crocodile tears produced for "low-income Londoners" from an organisation (The Spectator) which isn't famed for its concern for the low paid or indeed for any concern over inequality. Time and again we get this sudden concern for the poor, the elderly or the disabled from people who are remarkable quiet about it in any other context. What it amounts to here is concern for the polluters but none for the polluted (poorer Londoners are the most likely to be affected by pollution than the better-off), and the hypocrisy is absolutely sickening: it makes me furious.

Richard Carter ● 647d

I wouldn't condone vandalism of any sort but I think there is a difference in the approach and intent between XR/Stop Oil and the ULEZ protesters. My understanding is that the XR/SO protesters didn't seek to cause permanent criminal damage to their targets - the paintings they threw paint at were protected by glass and that together with the frames could be cleaned; similarly paint dust on snooker tables or other targets could be removed or cleaned. (Although, obviously, there's a cost involved in the cleaning; compensation orders were presumably made against those found guilty?) The ULEZ protesters are intent on causing criminal damage to permanently disable the cameras causing thousands of pounds of damage. Another major difference is that I don't believe XR/SO protesters have ever sought anonymity for their actions whereas the ULEZ protesters seem to do it furtively under the cloak of darkness; if they believe so strongly in their cause why don't we see them proudly brandishing the cameras they've damaged in broad daylight and making statements to the press? Perhaps it might also be interesting if TfL lawyers investigated if those encouraging or supporting the damaging of cameras were possible commuting a crime of conspiracy? Some of those seem quite wealthy individuals so if they were guilty they might be subject to heafty compensation claims for replacing the cameras? However, I believe TfL is now investing in camera cars to circumvent the vandalism of fixed cameras.

Michael Ixer ● 651d

"Sir Ian Duncan Smith, the Tory MP for Chingford and Woodford Green, most of which is now covered by the ULEZ, recently told the Daily Mail he is “happy” for people in his constituency to damage cameras “because they are facing an imposition that no-one wants and they have been lied to about it”.He later told the Evening Standard he does not condone law breaking “of any kind”."https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/ulez-more-half-london-conservative-161144941.html"Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers, has been suspended from Twitter after posting that someone “should kill” Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, over Ulez.Mr Mullins, who has previously said he intends to stand for mayor in the 2024 election, has now had his Twitter profile blocked as a result of remarks he made at the weekend that violated the social media site’s rules. The remarks are understood to have been made during a discussion about the ultra-low emission zone.Replying to a comment by a Twitter user on Sunday night which called for Mr Mullins to stand at the next election, he said: “I am on it, and it’s time to dump the Muslim mayor”.Nine minutes later he responded to another user who complained that the government was not doing enough to stop Mr Khan. In his tweet, Mr Mullins said “someone should kill him”.‘Twitter is right to take the action it did’In a statement to The Telegraph, Mr Mullins said: “I unreservedly apologise and withdraw my remarks. I went too far. Twitter is right to take the action it did.”"https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/twitter-blocks-charlie-mullins-posting-134349790.htmlJust keep on telling people that they are "at war" and don't be surprised at such behaviour by seemingly rational people like Duncan Smith and Mullins. This seems to be the way the media run politics these days.

David Ainsworth ● 655d

I am not ideologically opposed to ULEZ. I think every sane person would want to breathe clean air. But like many others, including, it seems, Keir Starmer, I have concerns about ULEZ expansion and in particular about the way it has been introduced.I am surprised that anyone would want to defend Sadiq's decision to ignore the result of his public consultation. The fact is that more people voted against the expansion of ULEZ than voted for it. The notion that the millions who abstained should be regarded as having tacitly voted in favour is plainly unjustified. Since when do abstentions count as votes for the motion? But the undemocratic behaviour of Sadiq and the tactics of his Deputy, who apparently  tried to manipulate the evidence on the benefits of ULEZ, are peripheral issues. My main concerns about ULEZ expansion, some of which were put to Sadiq on the 'Today' programme this morning, are as follows:1) The expansion will have a disproportionate impact on those living without good transport links, which includes the periphery of London.2) The impact is likely to fall disproportionately on poorer families and smaller businesses who may not be able to afford a ULEZ compliant vehicle or to pay a surcharge of £12.50 per day. The scrappage scheme, offering up to £2000 for a non-compliant car or £7000 for a van, would only cover part of the cost of switching to a greener vehicle, even assuming there are sufficient green vehicle on the market. There is currently a shortfall of green vehicles and their price has risen. Furthermore the scrappage scheme is not available to those living outside of London who may need to travel into the capital.3) It is not clear that ULEZ expansion will significantly improve air quality in London so as to justify its social and economic costs.Even though ULEZ expansion came into force today, the problems outlined above still remain. I don't think the issue is dead.

Steven Rose ● 657d

" A sort of gerrymandering playing on pollution and health?"Meanwhile in the Guardian today:-"Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders.Sunak tweeted on Tuesday: “I want to see more homes built. It’s also what local communities want. But sometimes hangover EU laws get in the way. It’s not right. So I’m cutting the red tape to unlock thousands of new homes and I’m stepping up action to protect our environment.”The nutrient neutrality scheme, aimed at saving England’s rivers from being overloaded with nitrates and phosphates, which cause algal blooms and choke oxygen from rivers, currently allows developers to pay for “credits” to improve local wetland areas. This allows them to offset pollution.But the new amendment allows planning officials to ignore the extra pollution caused by sewage from new homes in sensitive areas and runoff from construction sites, with the taxpayer paying for the offsets instead."

David Ainsworth ● 657d

Barbara, sorry, I'm not sure what your point is.Rental cars are a slightly different business model. One can normally get unlimited mileage deals as the hire companies know the average/maximum mileage people normally drive in a day or week and factor that into the fixed charges. Why wouldn't people drive long distances? The reason people hire cars is to tour around foreign parts: if one's touring the US one can clock up a lot of miles from Seattle to LA via San Francisco and Vegas, even San Diego to San Francisco return is a fair mileage but not untypical, and a trip round the Keys, Everglades also taking in Naples, St Petersburg and Miami in Florida clocks up a reasonable mileage. Closer to home trips around the archaeological sites in Greece and Italy takes in a few miles, and the Dali Triangle in Spain is more modest but difficult without a hire car. Yes, if one picks up a parking ticket in, say, San Francisco it's worth paying it promptly before it gets into to car hire bureaucracy. Leasing is different. One usually pays a monthly fee based on an estimated mileage for the lease term (often three years); exceed the agreed mileage and there's a charge per mile. However, the registered user isn't usually the owner or the lessor, or, in the case of a company car, even the lessee: it's the person who actually uses it so any penalty notices go direct to the user who is responsible on a day-to-day basis for the car. (Ok, in the cases of private leases this will usual be the lessee.) I've also discussed the information security model of lease cars with people in the motor and cyber security industries and this model isn't quite correct yet. Those leasing second hand cars with sophisticated electronics have sometimes seen previous lessees' personnel information as manufacturers don't always differentiate between different lessees for the same car and VIN owned by a lessor. I'm sure that will get resolved. Car clubs like Zipcar are different, they're really intended for local journeys in or around a city like London and they usually are more expensive for longer journeys but then there's also a trade off with convenience. One wouldn't use a club car to drive from London to Newcastle, Edinburgh or Penzance. The sensible option there is to take the train and hire a car locally if one's touring and doesn't own a car.Anyway, my point is like it or not it's the motor manufacturers wanting to change the ownership model and that will likely assist the move to road charging. It's a political decision but given the congestion on our roads I guess it will happen sometime. Interestingly, I also understand many car manufacturers would like to cut out car dealers and sell directly to customers to keep control over sale terms, product and customers, and because some dealers have poor reputations - particularly in the second hand car market. There's obviously pushback from dealers and from a practical perspective dealers are useful for arranging test drives, delivery and servicing but it may change to more of an agency relationship where the customer's contract is with the manufacturer and the dealer collects a commission for supporting the sale and after sale services.

Michael Ixer ● 659d

"Economics 1.0, essentially trivial detail" - You've conflated two quite separate things here, Ed: the first was a statement that road pricing was an economic issue, the second a comment on detail about how far the development of it had gone (and given the complexity, I'd guess not far)."Public transport at present is not evenly distributed through out London" - True, but it's naturally more concentrated in the centre as that's where it's needed most based on the trips needed."More affluent motorists receive subsidiaries [!] to buy so-called green cars. Such subsidized green cars are still using a high percentage of gas to produce electricity. They also avoid fuel duty." - True, but I don't believe that electric cars are the answer, not the main one anyway."Through design or possibly because journalists and party parrots tend to come from middle and upper classes we have avoided a discussion around transport, taxations and subsidies." - True, but I'm not sure how relevant this is in this context. But besides the stick of road pricing/congestion charges etc, there is the need to (partially) compensate by offering the carrot of greater subsidies for public transport, which would ideally be free."Progressive elements found in the form of road tax and flue duty have virtually become irrelevant." - "Road tax" was abolished in 1937! And you pay more flue/fuel? duty the more you drive, especially so for large, gas guzzling SUVs, for which there is absolutely no excuse in a city. And in any case the  fuel duty escalator (which was introduced by a conservative government under John Major!) hasn't been used since 2010, a big mistake.None of which is an argument against charging differentially for the scarce resource of road space.PS: How come you didn't mention your perennial favourite, transparency?

Richard Carter ● 659d