>>97852 Labour is claiming it too. Outside of London it's probably not been on your radar but ULEZ expansion has been a long-running weak point for whoever sits in office that a super-majority of locals in the expansion zones virulently oppose.
It worked in central and inner London but now you're getting into the areas that feel a bit more like the rest of the country where people don't just live without a car.
>>97855 Forgot my picture. Keep in mind Khan talks about it being a social justice issue which has gone down as well with the poor as you would expect.
I'm horrified with myself as I always thought I lived in Central but it turns out that I've crossed the border into Inner London. No wonder there's rubbish everywhere, I live at the tip.
I'm not a Londoner so I don't have a horse in the race, and I don't know what things are like down there in public transport. But is seems to me the people in favour of the ULEZ are being very small minded and presenting what I can only imagine is an intentional misrepresentation of the impact it would have on people's lives.
If I couldn't use my car where I live, everything would be a colossal ballache. If I just take shopping as one example- Instead of ten minutes down to the shop it would turn into the kind of hour long trek you have to plan your entire morning around, not to mention the fact it would restrict me to only what I can carry; either that or I'd have to get a cab, which would cost me at least a tenner. Having to make smaller shops more often, on top of the added time and inconvenience, would likely just end up with me ordering takeaways half the time and pissing all my money on that.
The kind of argument ULEZzers seem to always make back at that is to just scoff and roll their eyes and act as though it's just spoilt not to want to give up half the already precious free time and personal freedom you have. I can only imagine they are the kind of comfortable professional types who get to work from home half of their week, and haven't lived anywhere but inner London with all the options for transport and densely packed amenities since they were kids, and simply refuse to believe other places are different. They've never needed a car, so they refuse to understand what a life-changer having access to a vehicle is for the ordinary working person across most of the country.
Most places in this country you really need to be able to travel independently, or else you are incredibly restricted in your options. Adding a few more bus routes won't solve that, and I doubt they are doing even that most of the places these schemes are coming in. With that in mind you can't exactly blame people for perceiving it as just another way of grabbing more money off people who have no choice but to pay it.
The ones up here have at least targeted businesses exclusively- This one targets everybody, as I understand it, so it's different. Could it be another example of performative politics by PMC types who claim to represent the left but ultimately end up yet again being thoroughly anti-working class?
ULEZ is about reducing air pollution that is harmful to health, not stopping people from driving. The ULEZ charge only applies to petrol vehicles built before 2005 or diesels built before 2014. Newer vehicles have cleaner exhaust emissions and are fully exempt. People on a low income or anyone with children can claim a £2,000 scrappage payment if they buy a newer vehicle; small businesses can claim £5,000 to buy a newer van.
Unfortunately the policy has become wrapped up in a bunch of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
>>97857 >>97858 I really don't care about any of that. I live in the outer boroughs, and I want/need my car. I would appreciate it if they left me alone and stop trying to squeeze every penny out of me.
The ULEZ is about human health. Thousands of Londoners die prematurely every year because of air pollution, most of which comes from vehicle exhaust emissions. London needs stricter emissions requirements than the rest of the country, because the very high density of vehicles greatly increases the concentration of emissions in the air.
93% of vehicles within Greater London are already ULEZ compliant. No vehicle needs to be scrapped because of ULEZ. You're free to sell your old car or van to someone outside of Greater London. The replacement vehicle doesn't need to be new.
>>97862 >Thousands of Londoners die prematurely every year because of air pollution,
Just shy of ten thousand a year at last year's estimate, and climbing.
>>97861 At the moment electric cars (EVs) will never pay off their building carbon footprint, between the mineral extraction, transportation, mineral refinement, refined materials transportation, assembly, and assembled product transportation each individual car will over its lifetime have produced more carbon dioxide than a modern petrol or diesel car.
On the other hand, more consumers buying more EVs will create more demand for local EV production infrastructure. Or so the theory goes. I'm not holding out much hope for finding lithium and cobalt deposits under St. James' Park.
The real reason you should buy an EV if you believe in and want to attempt to prevent or slow down climate change is the same reason for everything else in the world. Money. More money in the EV market means more research done with EV money to capture more of the increasingly valuable EV market. They might be a bit shit now, but if we as consumers pump enough money in to the market then the market will fall all over itself to improve the product. For an example of this in real life see the cold war computer battle between the Soviets and the USA.
On the other other hand, I haven't run the numbers on importing fuel vs using the grid to power all the cars in Britain. It could be a bit of an own goal if we can't keep the lights on in A&E because Sandra wanted to go to the other asda 30 miles away because it smells nicer. I would like to point out though it's absolutely Sandra's right to do that and anyone saying otherwise is a very bad person.
There are also huge ethical concerns around the manufacture of EVs, due to how cobalt is extracted and refined it's simply not possible to purchase an EV that hasn't been involved in child slavery. Similarly there are geopolitical concerns, most of the rare earth mines in the world are owned by people we've decided to start a war with [rephrase this -ed] [no -auth]. If we, as in the western world, smash all the machines that make proper cars and build machines that build EVs, we'll all be a bit fucked when China pulls the plug on the rare earth market. EVs are more exposed to supply line problems like the Ever Given thing a year or two ago. In a post apocalypse world you can't just walk up to an abandoned EV and siphon its fuel, EV batteries need heavy lift machinery to be changed out. There's a very strong possibility that the whole renewables bollocks doesn't pan out in the next decade or two and we'll have to expand the grid to meet new EV demands with dirty fuel, and usually panic electricity is generated with the dirtiest of the dirty fuel. Also they look a bit gay.
Personally I wouldn't get one, because I don't drive.
P.S. I just remembered they do tend to explode a bit. That's not a racist meme, they really do. But don't worry, by buying one you'll encourage the nerd people to improve that feature for the next release.
>At the moment electric cars (EVs) will never pay off their building carbon footprint, between the mineral extraction, transportation, mineral refinement, refined materials transportation, assembly, and assembled product transportation each individual car will over its lifetime have produced more carbon dioxide than a modern petrol or diesel car.
That's just about plausible in countries like the US or Germany where electricity generation is much more reliant on coal, but it's definitely not the case in the UK. When you factor absolutely everything in, EVs in the UK produce about two to three times less emissions over their lifespan than petrol vehicles.
>>97866 >Production = production of raw materials, manufacturing of components and vehicle assembly
Figure ES1, page x, your source.
>Billions of tons of cargo are transported around the world each year by trucks, planes, ships, and trains. This transportation makes up 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and as much as 11% if warehouses and ports are included.
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/freight-transportation
>There are also huge ethical concerns around the manufacture of EVs, due to how cobalt is extracted
Newer EV batteries based on lithium iron phosphate chemistry contain no cobalt. About a third of EVs are currently built with cobalt-free batteries and we expect the entire industry to be using cobalt-free chemistry by 2028. That isn't really for humanitarian reasons, but because cobalt is expensive and because cobalt-free LFP batteries last longer.
>>97868 I know you're googling this as you go, so let's agree to take it slow and get to know each other first. Spend a good hour thinking about everything you want to say, put it all in one post, and I'll respond to it tomorrow.
Transportation is factored in to the analysis, which counts significantly against conventionally fuelled vehicles. Petrol does not teleport itself from an oil well to your local Esso. If you buy £40 worth of petrol a week, that's 1.5 tonnes of fuel per year that has to be shipped half way across the world.
>>97870 If I respond to this point you're going to make another post about something else aren't you. Silly sausage. Pull oil out of the ground, pipe it to a cracker, ship it to the UK. Pull resources out of the ground, ship them to the refinery because they can't be piped. Do this multiple times for all the different materials required. And again for all the different materials being shipped from different parts of the world to all the locations they're needed to be used in manufacturing components. Then ship those components to an assembly facility, multiple different assembly facilities, from multiple different sources, and it might only be an intermediary facility, they might assemble parts to be assembled in to the car at a later date at a different location. Then ship those cars all round the world, and no it's not just the same as normal cars, because there are more local supply chains and fewer specialised resources required in the production of normal cars.
>“I’ve done the job for just over eight months, or so now, and one of the things is PMQs, where I get to see him every week. I’ve got to say, the more I do it, the less I seem to understand about Keir Starmer and the Labour Party’s views on anything, counter-intuitively,” says Mr Sunak.
>“That’s because, for me, I have a set of principles and values that are important to me, and that anchor my approach to life and to government. I don’t see that across the despatch box. Every week you just get a different position and he just is quite happy to jump on whatever bandwagon is coming along and his response [is] to whatever headline or poll he has seen the week before and I think people can see that.”
He's also ordering a review into low traffic neighbourhoods. I guess that's the attack lines being drawn; as well as Starmer not knowing whether a woman can have a penis they're going for his lack of personality and saying that Labour hate motorists.
>>97873 I think it's fair that in a democracy politicians should change their opinions to align with popular sentiment. On the other hand I think a politician should have strong moral principles that form his core personality. Now that Sunak mentions it, I see Keir is very much like a plastic bag blowing in the wind, he makes a lot of noise, is empty inside, and is incapable of movement without a strong external current to force his path.
As attack lines go, it's a very good one. I suppose that's why spads get the big bucks.
>>97874 Tory election strategy looks like it will be focused on the fact that Sunak is polling higher than the Tory party whereas there is very little personal support for Starmer (>>97629), so their best bet is to make it a battle of personalities to sway undecided voters and the large number of people who are currently intending to vote Labour but only have lukewarm support for them.
>>97875 That's probably the best strategy given what they have to work with. It's doomed to failure though, even with perfect execution.
Politics these days is very much about making voters turn out rather than swaying mythical floating voters. The red wall going blue was a bit of an anomaly and it seems to have made people forget all political theory learned over the last 50 years. Britain is still very racist, whether we pretend otherwise or not. I make no comment on whether that's good or bad, but it does mean tory voters are unlikely to turn out in numbers for Sunak regardless of how Keir is a vacuous shell desperately trying to pretend to be Tony Blair.
Meanwhile labour voters are going to drag themselves to the voting booths come hell or high water, mainly because of 7% inflation, but a fair few will be doing it because of the social policies and statements Sunak is making to appeal to the racist groups who won't vote for him (I know) anyway.
The cost of living payments and benefits increases went someway towards preventing the breakdown of civil society, but they don't change the fact that a great many people in the UK are seeing real downgrades in their quality of life bracket. People with respectable professions, paramedics, nurses, police officers, entry level white collar workers, anyone on less than 28 grand is suffering, and that's a huge proportion of the population. The median income this year is 33 grand, and even those people are seeing downgrades, while they're not exactly suffering the change in quality of life is far more noticeable on 33 grand than say 50 grand. People tend to worry when things are on the downturn, and worry means change. Keir being a bit shit won't overcome that worry. The obvious solution would be more cost of living payments close to the election, but that will be seen as political cowardice and the actions of a weak man.
I don't see a way for Sunak to get the economy under control before the election, it's not just reducing inflation, it's restoring purchasing power to the bottom third of earners. Well, to everyone, but mainly the bottom third. That means pay rises or deflation. Pay rises won't happen, and the only realistic way to get deflation before the election is extensive increases in credit supply, which would be disastrous in the long term.
I hope to all the gods Keir doesn't become Prime Minister, it will be the end of Britain as we know it. The problem is the tories are asking people to be understanding and patient with not being able to afford a second holiday/their mortgage/their kids' shoes (delete as appropriate for class of affected voter). They're asking that while the leader is brown, a millionaire with an American green card, and apparently a fascist. Solidarity is always in short supply when times are hard, asking for solidarity from such an outsider position is bold to say the least.
As for the overall strategy of Sunak trying to cast Keir as the outsider and have a laugh with the lads at his nasally voice and non-existent personality, it's brilliant, but it's not going to work.
ITV News has just started after the Women's World Cup match I can't believe Colombia beat Germany!!!!. It's been on for about two minutes and they've said "on the side of motorists" five or six times. Rishi Sunak really must have nothing else.
It's a flimsy angle to fight an election on, there are consultants being paid millions of pounds and the best they can come up with is 'ULEZ bad, motorist PM good'. With the usual hot-air of the opponents being chameleon-people. I feel that I could make a better campaign in an afternoon and I'd only need a pen, paper, several cups of tea and maybe some hobnobs.
But I'm not sure if a review on LTNs isn't direly needed. Now before you put me in the Wickerman hear me out: LTNs are an example of policy being ruined by local democracy. The kind of absolute hogwash that would torpedo the Greens if they ever got a whiff of real power. I've seen how this works in real life, the residents get on board with turning their road into an LTN picturing trendy mums on scooters and Harry playing in the street but then once implemented they have an apocalyptic shitfit because they thought it was about keeping the road for local people rather than it impacting their own use.
"How will I do my school run now?!"
-scowls Gemma, 26, full-time mum and neighbourhood organiser living 15 minutes walk from local school.
"My Amazon package didn't arrive and I had to sit in traffic on my drive to work. It's my bloody road, I pay council tax not some bloody lefty cyclist."
-Andrew, imageboard know-it-all
The reality is you need to implement this policy within a central design framework for the good of everyone. Traffic needs to flow, there needs to be a sober look at maximising health outcomes and NIMBYism must be met with a brutal crackdown. A Chinese solution as comrade Erich Honecker would say only with the balls to implement it. Not that I've got any hope of common sense being followed when it comes to traffic.
>>97881 They're not going to do anything. The ULEZ is a money-making ruse that helps the Transport For London budget - no way the government will back down and directly fund TFL.
>>97881 >I could make a better campaign in an afternoon and I'd only need a pen, paper, several cups of tea and maybe some hobnobs.
This is a practical example of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
I'm sure you think you could come up with a better campaign than all the spads and consultants and ex-military propaganda unit types, but you couldn't. What you would actually come up with is a genius attack that absolutely decimates Starmer's credibility and credentials, your opening salvo would take the entire shadow cabinet down to the realm of Monty Python parody, it would truly be a glorious spectacle to witness for the first few days. Then the gaping holes would appear, your attacks would be ill thought out and amateurishly executed, you will have left yourself and your politicians open to accusations of hypocrisy, examples of their own work on the subject being equally daft, probably a minor scandal or two you hadn't accounted for which you have now given fertile ground to become the deciding factor in the election.
In politics you can't just say things, you have to know what responses you're gifting your opponent and either come up with a plausible counter to that response or drop the whole idea entirely, even if it's really funny that Starmer had a pint once during lockdown by accident and you have a picture of it, you can't go on about it while your bloke is getting done by the parliamentary standards committee for having lock ins every friday night.
You're an utter berk, and given what a berk you are I'm less willing to take this;
>there needs to be a sober look at maximising health outcomes and NIMBYism must be met with a brutal crackdown. A Chinese solution as comrade Erich Honecker would say only with the balls to implement it
as the comedic poetry you're trying to pass it off as. Everything about you, in a political sense, is wrong. Quite possibly in every other sense too. Thank god you'll never have any real power.
>>97886 The tory election strategy seems boring because anything exciting would leave the tories open to counter attack. Cars are uncontroversial, simple, and clearly defined, the opposite of anything else in political play at the moment. If the other lad thinks he could do better because he remembers that time a labour MP said something silly he's sorely mistaken.
The Tory election strategy looks poor because of how fucked they are.
When you ask people how well Rishi Sunak is doing as leader, about 30% say that he's doing a good job. When you ask them how well he's doing on any of the headline issues - health, immigration, housing, the economy, Brexit - that number goes down.
If he talks about health, people remember how long they waited at A&E or how they can't get an NHS dentist. If he talks about immigration, people remember that the small boats are still arriving. If he talks about the economy, people remember how much poorer they are than just a few years ago. It doesn't matter what he promises, because nobody believes him; There isn't enough time or money to actually deliver any positive change before the next election, even if the party were competent enough to do it.
ULEZ is a desperate distraction tactic. It's one of the few issues that the Tories can safely talk about, because the roads are one of the few things in this country that they haven't wrecked. Most people don't care about the issue and can't be made to care, but that's almost immaterial. They're just using it to fill up airtime, to keep the press talking about something that doesn't stink of Tory failure.
The Tories aren't trying to win the next election, because they know it's an impossibility. They're just trying to avoid a total wipeout, trying to find some territory that they can defend. There is no winning strategy and they know it, but they might be able to hang on to a few extra seats if they can find enough distractions.
For those old enough to remember the early 90s, it's the Cones Hotline all over again.
Right lads, I've convinced myself I'm not on drugs so I have a series of questions for the both of you to help me make sense of the world.
1. Who is Florence Pugh?
2. How many pubs does her father own?
3. Why can't tradesmen ride bikes?
4. What's the common theme between Oppenheimer, East Oxford, and dictatorship?
5. Is a "local community" defined as the local community or the council?
6. Where does the Yuri Geller impersonation come from?
7. (Bonus Round)
If I was Kier Starmer my election strategy would be to go round knocking on voter's doors and going "He says he likes cars, but have you noticed he's brown?" and it'd work. Otherlad can say something very intelligent to counter me but I'm still right and I don'tcare, I'll take it. A win is a win. Principles don't matter.
Tories are fucked and that's a good thing. The monkey's paw is that we're going to get a Labour party that seeks to imitate them in every way- I used to defend them saying "we're not like the Yanks, there's still at least an important distinction between outright crony capitalism and beige social democracy", but I'm losing faith in that assertion myself.
>>97891 I think it'd be just as effective to make a more brown-sounding name for him. Something proper Indian like Rishikeshandhur Sunakulkhankigaranthurbundhi.
>>97891 Too dangerous for Keir, one of those awful normal people might ask him if women can have penises. Penii? All the racism in the world won't save him from that gaffe again.
Turnabout is fair play, and in this case the best tactic.
Is it really the government's place to go around telling people if they're allowed penises? That goes against British values. Do you want me knocking on your door asking you what genitals you have? Do you want government-mandated genital photo ID cards? Do you want the self service checkouts in Tesco to require you to scan the barcode on your bollocks? Preposterous, anti-British, and exactly the sort of nanny-state nonsense those Britiain-hating cultural marxist Conservatives want. Never forget it's them who gave you a muzzie PM.
As long as they work hard and pay their taxes I don't care what bits they have. Vote Labour.
>>97891 >The monkey's paw is that we're going to get a Labour party that seeks to imitate them in every way
That's pretty much guaranteed. It's the 2010 'We've got not money' note but substantially worse because everything has already been cut to the bone.
>>97892 I'm sorry but I'll remain undecided until there's a racist playground chant in play. He may have become PM purely on grounds that he was imposed by the markets rather than even his own party but we have to have standards in our democracy.
Can someone get Keir to nail his trousers to the mast on scrapping the temporary VAT rise once he definitely gets in? At least it's something tangible rather than all penises and oil.
