FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > ULEZ Again
ULEZ Again
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative?" ULEZ zones only work if they provide alternatives, for example, investing in better public transport. There is a low emissions zone in Bristol, which would be fine, but there's been no investment in public transport to allow people to get in and out of the city more easily. | |||
 | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative?" The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside." Care to explain… | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside." What? | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside." Particulates are worse on the underground. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't improve what's happening above ground. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative?" London does have a half decent transport system and their is money for the low paid. Compromises. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside." Evidence? | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Evidence? " There are recent videos on YouTube of people with hand held air quality monitors using them to measure air quality while walking around Central London streets and also using the London Underground system. I found it very interesting to see the difference between street level and Underground air quality  | |||
| |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Evidence? There are recent videos on YouTube of people with hand held air quality monitors using them to measure air quality while walking around Central London streets and also using the London Underground system. I found it very interesting to see the difference between street level and Underground air quality "Air quality on the underground is poor due to dust from wheels, brakes and motors. This isn't co2 emissions Air quality above ground is poor due to emissions from ICE vehicles. This includes co2 emissions. However we are above ground for most of the time. You aren't sitting on a tube train for 24 hours a day. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Evidence? There are recent videos on YouTube of people with hand held air quality monitors using them to measure air quality while walking around Central London streets and also using the London Underground system. I found it very interesting to see the difference between street level and Underground air quality "Morley specifically mentioned CO2 though - and I reckon he’s wrong. Not that the LU is a particularly clean environment of course, though newer lines and more modern traction makes a huge difference. | |||
| |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Evidence? There are recent videos on YouTube of people with hand held air quality monitors using them to measure air quality while walking around Central London streets and also using the London Underground system. I found it very interesting to see the difference between street level and Underground air quality "YouTube as "evidence" of something, again
"Monitoring of CO2 on the London Underground
Please set out the reasons why Transport for London does not routinely monitor levels of CO2 that can build up on London Underground trains?
Answer
Date: Monday 23 July 2018
It is essential that staff and passengers on Transport for London (TfL) services breathe the cleanest air possible.
TfL has taken measurements of the levels of CO2 on the network, most recently in winter 2017/18 as part of its work to evaluate the effect of ventilation systems. TfL took measurements inside passenger carriages on the Victoria line during rush hour periods. Given the high level of passenger usage and the fact that the Victoria Line is fully enclosed, this scenario is one in which the highest CO2 readings are likely to be encountered on the network.
The measurements have consistently shown that levels that accumulate in London Underground are far below the regulatory limits. For this reason, CO2 is not routinely monitored." | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Evidence? There are recent videos on YouTube of people with hand held air quality monitors using them to measure air quality while walking around Central London streets and also using the London Underground system. I found it very interesting to see the difference between street level and Underground air quality
YouTube as "evidence" of something, again
"Monitoring of CO2 on the London Underground
Please set out the reasons why Transport for London does not routinely monitor levels of CO2 that can build up on London Underground trains?
Answer
Date: Monday 23 July 2018
It is essential that staff and passengers on Transport for London (TfL) services breathe the cleanest air possible.
TfL has taken measurements of the levels of CO2 on the network, most recently in winter 2017/18 as part of its work to evaluate the effect of ventilation systems. TfL took measurements inside passenger carriages on the Victoria line during rush hour periods. Given the high level of passenger usage and the fact that the Victoria Line is fully enclosed, this scenario is one in which the highest CO2 readings are likely to be encountered on the network.
The measurements have consistently shown that levels that accumulate in London Underground are far below the regulatory limits. For this reason, CO2 is not routinely monitored.""Are you deliberately conflating NO2 with CO2, or have you made an assumption? | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Evidence? There are recent videos on YouTube of people with hand held air quality monitors using them to measure air quality while walking around Central London streets and also using the London Underground system. I found it very interesting to see the difference between street level and Underground air quality
YouTube as "evidence" of something, again
"Monitoring of CO2 on the London Underground
Please set out the reasons why Transport for London does not routinely monitor levels of CO2 that can build up on London Underground trains?
Answer
Date: Monday 23 July 2018
It is essential that staff and passengers on Transport for London (TfL) services breathe the cleanest air possible.
TfL has taken measurements of the levels of CO2 on the network, most recently in winter 2017/18 as part of its work to evaluate the effect of ventilation systems. TfL took measurements inside passenger carriages on the Victoria line during rush hour periods. Given the high level of passenger usage and the fact that the Victoria Line is fully enclosed, this scenario is one in which the highest CO2 readings are likely to be encountered on the network.
The measurements have consistently shown that levels that accumulate in London Underground are far below the regulatory limits. For this reason, CO2 is not routinely monitored."
Are you deliberately conflating NO2 with CO2, or have you made an assumption?"tbf the conflation happened a lot earlier in the thread. "The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside." | |||
"Given the high level of passenger usage and the fact that the Victoria Line is fully enclosed, this scenario is one in which the highest CO2 readings are likely to be encountered on the network. The measurements have consistently shown that levels that accumulate in London Underground are far below the regulatory limits. For this reason, CO2 is not routinely monitored." " I think any scientist worth their salt would tell you that a sample size of 1 based on a conjecture of a worst-case scenario isn't worth the paper it's written on. That's bad science. If anything, it's not even science. Now multiple readings across multiple stations at multiple times over a long period of time (using calibrated and routinely tested equipment) is a different matter. There will always be anomalies. So, I'm a bit suspicious to say the least. | |||
| |||
"As the owner of a non compliant( due mainly to age) vehicle, I would have like to have seen the ever decreasing number of such vehicles (and in my case their drivers) being allowed to disappear of the scene gracefully. Such a move would have earned Khan a lot more respect than the inevitable resentment which he will soon be enjoying when this goes through. None of this would be so bad were it not for the sheer hypocrisy of the policy of unbridled growth, development and overpopulation of London but, hey ho, it helps people get rich which is what life is all about. It would not be so bad if there had ever been a plan to limit growth to net zero. Some chance." Graceful exit is exactly right, the carbon footprint of a new car is huge. Old cars get offloaded into other areas so we now have more money being spent on new cars, and old cars polluting the rest of the country. A period of grace / exemption until the old car is sold if you live within the ULEZ would be a winner. It is remarkable how efficient this scheme is policed with a sledge hammer | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Evidence? There are recent videos on YouTube of people with hand held air quality monitors using them to measure air quality while walking around Central London streets and also using the London Underground system. I found it very interesting to see the difference between street level and Underground air quality
YouTube as "evidence" of something, again
"Monitoring of CO2 on the London Underground
Please set out the reasons why Transport for London does not routinely monitor levels of CO2 that can build up on London Underground trains?
Answer
Date: Monday 23 July 2018
It is essential that staff and passengers on Transport for London (TfL) services breathe the cleanest air possible.
TfL has taken measurements of the levels of CO2 on the network, most recently in winter 2017/18 as part of its work to evaluate the effect of ventilation systems. TfL took measurements inside passenger carriages on the Victoria line during rush hour periods. Given the high level of passenger usage and the fact that the Victoria Line is fully enclosed, this scenario is one in which the highest CO2 readings are likely to be encountered on the network.
The measurements have consistently shown that levels that accumulate in London Underground are far below the regulatory limits. For this reason, CO2 is not routinely monitored."
Are you deliberately conflating NO2 with CO2, or have you made an assumption?"I am not conflating anything. I am directly addressing the point made, simply to clarify that it was inconsequential. I agree that,CO2 is not the safety concern from emissions anyway, NOx is. CO2 is a concern as a greenhouse gas. | |||
"Given the high level of passenger usage and the fact that the Victoria Line is fully enclosed, this scenario is one in which the highest CO2 readings are likely to be encountered on the network. The measurements have consistently shown that levels that accumulate in London Underground are far below the regulatory limits. For this reason, CO2 is not routinely monitored." I think any scientist worth their salt would tell you that a sample size of 1 based on a conjecture of a worst-case scenario isn't worth the paper it's written on. That's bad science. If anything, it's not even science. Now multiple readings across multiple stations at multiple times over a long period of time (using calibrated and routinely tested equipment) is a different matter. There will always be anomalies. So, I'm a bit suspicious to say the least. " Not a single sample taken at a single point in time. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Care to explain… " Yes people go and measure the co2 ppm on the underground and then on the road It's constantly worse on the underground. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? The c02 emissions are worse on the underground than topside. Care to explain… Yes people go and measure the co2 ppm on the underground and then on the road It's constantly worse on the underground." Feel free to furnish us with the data. (Specifically CO2) | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Particulates then . It was 4 years ago the study. I assume co2 indont know what's in particulates. But the pollution is much worse. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/air-pollution-london-underground-tube-worse-than-above-ground-a8721586.html Probably because the air doesn't escape as easily " So? Is CO2 higher than acceptable limits? What relevance is what happens on the tube compared to above ground? Is CO2 reduction the only thing that ULEZ targets? If the tube is bad for particulate pollution should nothing else be improved? | |||
"Particulates then . It was 4 years ago the study. I assume co2 indont know what's in particulates. But the pollution is much worse. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/air-pollution-london-underground-tube-worse-than-above-ground-a8721586.html Probably because the air doesn't escape as easily So? Is CO2 higher than acceptable limits? What relevance is what happens on the tube compared to above ground? Is CO2 reduction the only thing that ULEZ targets? If the tube is bad for particulate pollution should nothing else be improved?" It would seem that they should improve the underground first before improving the over ground would you not agree? | |||
"Particulates then . It was 4 years ago the study. I assume co2 indont know what's in particulates. But the pollution is much worse. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/air-pollution-london-underground-tube-worse-than-above-ground-a8721586.html Probably because the air doesn't escape as easily So? Is CO2 higher than acceptable limits? What relevance is what happens on the tube compared to above ground? Is CO2 reduction the only thing that ULEZ targets? If the tube is bad for particulate pollution should nothing else be improved? It would seem that they should improve the underground first before improving the over ground would you not agree?" Which would have the greater impact on air quality in London? | |||
"Particulates then . It was 4 years ago the study. I assume co2 indont know what's in particulates. But the pollution is much worse. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/air-pollution-london-underground-tube-worse-than-above-ground-a8721586.html Probably because the air doesn't escape as easily So? Is CO2 higher than acceptable limits? What relevance is what happens on the tube compared to above ground? Is CO2 reduction the only thing that ULEZ targets? If the tube is bad for particulate pollution should nothing else be improved? It would seem that they should improve the underground first before improving the over ground would you not agree?" I would suggest that most people spend the majority of their time above ground. Unless they're wombles. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I expect the next step will be to expand congestion charge zone as that charges electric cars from 2025 because the income from ULEZ will decline fairly quickly as the car fleet upgrades or he will tighten the ULEZ emissions rules." Suspect that as Euro7 regs come in,in 2025 then to avoid a fine people will have to be driving a vehicle that meets Euro7. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” Plus the actual area in Bristol.is rally quite small in comparison to the proposed expansion in Greater London. French have quite a lot in their major cites but there is a relaxation of the rules in the evening. Ours are just a blanket ban. There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? ULEZ zones only work if they provide alternatives, for example, investing in better public transport. There is a low emissions zone in Bristol, which would be fine, but there's been no investment in public transport to allow people to get in and out of the city more easily." | |||
| |||
" Suspect that as Euro7 regs come in,in 2025 then to avoid a fine people will have to be driving a vehicle that meets Euro7." Euro7 regs? Wasn't the point of Brexit not to be regulated by Europe? | |||
| |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. ..." You left out the word 'Central' in front of London. Without a car, life isn't worth living out here in the Kent suburbs. Buses are scanty and railway stations miles away. Being a few hundred metres outside Mr Khan's territory, but not his influence, we are not even eligible for any scrappage incentive schemes. However, it will be nigh on impossible to avoid crossing his boundary in order to get anywhere useful in the local area. Unless we splash out many thousands on a compliant vehicle. | |||
" Suspect that as Euro7 regs come in,in 2025 then to avoid a fine people will have to be driving a vehicle that meets Euro7. Euro7 regs? Wasn't the point of Brexit not to be regulated by Europe?" No, it was to make a few quid extra for the 1% | |||
" Suspect that as Euro7 regs come in,in 2025 then to avoid a fine people will have to be driving a vehicle that meets Euro7. Euro7 regs? Wasn't the point of Brexit not to be regulated by Europe?" Lol | |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. ... You left out the word 'Central' in front of London. Without a car, life isn't worth living out here in the Kent suburbs. Buses are scanty and railway stations miles away. Being a few hundred metres outside Mr Khan's territory, but not his influence, we are not even eligible for any scrappage incentive schemes. However, it will be nigh on impossible to avoid crossing his boundary in order to get anywhere useful in the local area. Unless we splash out many thousands on a compliant vehicle." I've lived in both inner (Zone 1/2) and outer London (Zone 5/6) and have been able to get about without a car. ULEZ was announced years ago. You can trace as far back as 2017 for the ambition to have all of Greater London under ULEZ. People have had plenty of time to prepare for ULEZ and get a compliant car/van. Any petrol car made after 2006 is compliant, and any diesel car made after 2015 is compliant. If someone's able to afford a new diesel car (at the time) then they are able to afford to sell it and trade for a compliant car. | |||
"Particulates then . It was 4 years ago the study. I assume co2 indont know what's in particulates. But the pollution is much worse. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/air-pollution-london-underground-tube-worse-than-above-ground-a8721586.html Probably because the air doesn't escape as easily So? Is CO2 higher than acceptable limits? What relevance is what happens on the tube compared to above ground? Is CO2 reduction the only thing that ULEZ targets? If the tube is bad for particulate pollution should nothing else be improved? It would seem that they should improve the underground first before improving the over ground would you not agree? Which would have the greater impact on air quality in London? " King's college seems to be following particulates vs co2 | |||
| |||
"I expect the next step will be to expand congestion charge zone as that charges electric cars from 2025 because the income from ULEZ will decline fairly quickly as the car fleet upgrades or he will tighten the ULEZ emissions rules." If the judicial review goes in favour of Mr Khan the ULEZ will only be the start of his plans for road users in greater London. Remember the TFL slogan "every journey matters"  | |||
| |||
"I expect the next step will be to expand congestion charge zone as that charges electric cars from 2025 because the income from ULEZ will decline fairly quickly as the car fleet upgrades or he will tighten the ULEZ emissions rules.If the judicial review goes in favour of Mr Khan the ULEZ will only be the start of his plans for road users in greater London. Remember the TFL slogan "every journey matters" "ULEZ, Congestion charge etc will be combined under a "pay per mile" scheme which will actually be fairer. I imagine this will become a nation wide thing. | |||
"20 minute cities would remove a lot of congestion but there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who have muddied the waters again. " A lot of us don't want to live in a city, 20 minute ones or otherwise. | |||
"20 minute cities would remove a lot of congestion but there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who have muddied the waters again. A lot of us don't want to live in a city, 20 minute ones or otherwise." Great to hear, but they would still reduce congestion and create better air quality. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If you happen to live in Uxbridge and South Ruislip and looking to vote for the by election today, my advice is do not vote for Steve Tuckwell just for being a Tory but also do not vote for Danny Beales as he seems to flip flop on where he stands on ULEZ" It was Boris Johnson who introduced ULEZ in the first place as Mayor - Tuckwell and the Tories are being somewhat "economical with the truth", I'm afraid - and as a constituent, my concern is with the local issues that the Tories have gone out of their way in recent years to overlook or blatantly lie about...hence, I won't be voting for them. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but only the Secretary of State can stop the expansion - but would then have to change national policy preventing all UK cities from charging drivers based on their driving emissions...which would go against their legal obligation to tackle air pollution? | |||
"If you happen to live in Uxbridge and South Ruislip and looking to vote for the by election today, my advice is do not vote for Steve Tuckwell just for being a Tory but also do not vote for Danny Beales as he seems to flip flop on where he stands on ULEZ" ,,,, ,,,,( As I previously mentioned on this and another thread ) ,, ,, As Conservative London Mayor , Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ , when asked at the time if it was a money making scheme he said it was all about clean air ,,,,,, After resigning as the Conservative MP for Uxbridge following his spell as the Conservative Prime Minister , the very same Boris Johnson said ULEZ had nothing to do with clean air but was a money making scheme ,,,,( both statements were recorded and were broadcast on LBC Radio) ,,, , ,now that is flippin flip flopping at its finest | |||
| |||
"Thats why I said dont vote for either of them since the Tories introduced the scheme in the first place and Labour want to expand it. Your better off just voting for Count Binface " Just to be clear - THE MAYOR wants to expand it. Whether Tory or Labour want it or not (and remember, it was introduced by the Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson), there is a "lower emissions" legal requirement to be fulfilled, and this is what's been chosen - it's NOT party driven. The Tories are trying to use the "Khan being Labour" element of it (hence "economical with the truth") to win votes in this by-election - it's all they've campaigned on, for God's sake!! | |||
"If you happen to live in Uxbridge and South Ruislip and looking to vote for the by election today, my advice is do not vote for Steve Tuckwell just for being a Tory but also do not vote for Danny Beales as he seems to flip flop on where he stands on ULEZ ,,,, ,,,,( As I previously mentioned on this and another thread ) ,, ,, As Conservative London Mayor , Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ , when asked at the time if it was a money making scheme he said it was all about clean air ,,,,,, After resigning as the Conservative MP for Uxbridge following his spell as the Conservative Prime Minister , the very same Boris Johnson said ULEZ had nothing to do with clean air but was a money making scheme ,,,,( both statements were recorded and were broadcast on LBC Radio) ,,, , ,now that is flippin flip flopping at its finest " THIS!!! | |||
| |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution." Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. | |||
| |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers." Apparently loads of tradesmen use public transport. In fact, it's been said that most people using public transport before rush hour are tradies. | |||
| |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. Apparently loads of tradesmen use public transport. In fact, it's been said that most people using public transport before rush hour are tradies. " This is true, construction is one of the largest sectors and tradies obviously can't work from home. But doesn't mean anything as there are still a huge number who require a vehicle to move stuff around. | |||
"I hope this is the beginning of the end for Sadiq Khan as Mayor Of London" | |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. Apparently loads of tradesmen use public transport. In fact, it's been said that most people using public transport before rush hour are tradies. This is true, construction is one of the largest sectors and tradies obviously can't work from home. But doesn't mean anything as there are still a huge number who require a vehicle to move stuff around. " So you can confirm that's loads of tradesmen use public transport in London? | |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. Apparently loads of tradesmen use public transport. In fact, it's been said that most people using public transport before rush hour are tradies. This is true, construction is one of the largest sectors and tradies obviously can't work from home. But doesn't mean anything as there are still a huge number who require a vehicle to move stuff around. So you can confirm that's loads of tradesmen use public transport in London?" Yes- I'm one of them!! The early trains are full of us!! Unfortunately public transport isn't suitable for all construction workers/builders. Might sound weird but most people who drive in London do so out of necessity! | |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. Apparently loads of tradesmen use public transport. In fact, it's been said that most people using public transport before rush hour are tradies. This is true, construction is one of the largest sectors and tradies obviously can't work from home. But doesn't mean anything as there are still a huge number who require a vehicle to move stuff around. So you can confirm that's loads of tradesmen use public transport in London? Yes- I'm one of them!! The early trains are full of us!! Unfortunately public transport isn't suitable for all construction workers/builders. Might sound weird but most people who drive in London do so out of necessity!" I'll be honest, I don't know how it's possible. How do you carry all of your tools? The tradesmen I know have vans full of tools, not to mention materials. | |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. Apparently loads of tradesmen use public transport. In fact, it's been said that most people using public transport before rush hour are tradies. This is true, construction is one of the largest sectors and tradies obviously can't work from home. But doesn't mean anything as there are still a huge number who require a vehicle to move stuff around. So you can confirm that's loads of tradesmen use public transport in London? Yes- I'm one of them!! The early trains are full of us!! Unfortunately public transport isn't suitable for all construction workers/builders. Might sound weird but most people who drive in London do so out of necessity!" I agree most drive out of necessity. I know if I had a transport network like London, I wouldn't drive. | |||
| |||
"I think ULEZs and LTNs are a great idea. I'd love to be able to reach everything I need after only a short walk through nice clean air. " Indeed, but Uxbridge to Oxford Street is an 18 mile short walk. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers." There are multiple facets to this: 1) No one is asking businesses who must use vans to use public transport. It's about reducing the number of the most polluting vehicles on our roads. 2) Any good businessman would have prepared in advance for ULEZ as it was announced many years ago. The expansion is irrelevant as they would be working across London. 3) The poorest are most affected by poor air quality 4) The poorest do not own cars 5) Petrol Vehicles sold from 2006 onward are compliant. Only deisel vehicles from 2015 are compliant. If someone was able to afford a new deisel car then they are not poor and are able to trade/part-trade for a compliant vehicle. 6) ULEZ and its expansion was forced as a condition to TFL funding by Grant Shapps. 7) ULEZ was introduced by Boris Johnson 8) George Osbourne, then Chancellor, reduced TFL funding by 37% when Kahn became Mayor. 9) Scrappage grants come from central Government. They are choosing to not fund the scrappage scheme properly. Hope I covered all points. If not, feel free to reply. | |||
"Seems to be a bit of tension between the mayor and SKS over this issue" It's rather unnecessary. Uxbridge was not won even during Labour's victory in the late 90s. Torie's margin in Uxbridge was reduced down to 500 votes. From 15% down to 1.6%, and that's with a poor turnout. | |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. There are multiple facets to this: 1) No one is asking businesses who must use vans to use public transport. It's about reducing the number of the most polluting vehicles on our roads. 2) Any good businessman would have prepared in advance for ULEZ as it was announced many years ago. The expansion is irrelevant as they would be working across London. 3) The poorest are most affected by poor air quality 4) The poorest do not own cars 5) Petrol Vehicles sold from 2006 onward are compliant. Only deisel vehicles from 2015 are compliant. If someone was able to afford a new deisel car then they are not poor and are able to trade/part-trade for a compliant vehicle. 6) ULEZ and its expansion was forced as a condition to TFL funding by Grant Shapps. 7) ULEZ was introduced by Boris Johnson 8) George Osbourne, then Chancellor, reduced TFL funding by 37% when Kahn became Mayor. 9) Scrappage grants come from central Government. They are choosing to not fund the scrappage scheme properly. Hope I covered all points. If not, feel free to reply." Point 2: Any good business man? So much to unpack... A self employed person using their own transport to get around, might have a business but earn less than the the average wage. The poorest have the poorest air quality, what is the detail behind that? | |||
| |||
"Seems to be a bit of tension between the mayor and SKS over this issue It's rather unnecessary. Uxbridge was not won even during Labour's victory in the late 90s. Torie's margin in Uxbridge was reduced down to 500 votes. From 15% down to 1.6%, and that's with a poor turnout." Aye, Uxbridge is true-blue. To come within 500 bites of winning there was impressive. | |||
"Luckily we have excellent public transport in London to get around. The poorest do not own vehicles but are affected the most by pollution. Public transport is no good for many workers - love to see a self employed window fitter try to carry a huge load of double glazing plus their tools and the tube! Then there are carers who need to visit multiple clients during a day. London public transport is good but not suitable for all and it's these workers who haven't been taken into consideration. It's hypocrisy of a Labour mayor to force through a scheme which will cost some of the lowest paid up to £4500 per year. The ULEZ is and always has been about propping up TFLs budget and has nothing to do with pollution. It's another nail in the coffin for blue collar workers and another example of political bias towards white collar desk based workers. There are multiple facets to this: 1) No one is asking businesses who must use vans to use public transport. It's about reducing the number of the most polluting vehicles on our roads. 2) Any good businessman would have prepared in advance for ULEZ as it was announced many years ago. The expansion is irrelevant as they would be working across London. 3) The poorest are most affected by poor air quality 4) The poorest do not own cars 5) Petrol Vehicles sold from 2006 onward are compliant. Only deisel vehicles from 2015 are compliant. If someone was able to afford a new deisel car then they are not poor and are able to trade/part-trade for a compliant vehicle. 6) ULEZ and its expansion was forced as a condition to TFL funding by Grant Shapps. 7) ULEZ was introduced by Boris Johnson 8) George Osbourne, then Chancellor, reduced TFL funding by 37% when Kahn became Mayor. 9) Scrappage grants come from central Government. They are choosing to not fund the scrappage scheme properly. Hope I covered all points. If not, feel free to reply." In response: 1) Nobody is asking but small traders (especially) are being forced to as the cost of updating and replacing simply isn't viable. Particularly for those who require specialist vehicles. There has been no differentiation between those who NEED a vehicle and those who use one voluntarily. The result of this is catastrophic for many, not just businesses and self employed. __ 2) It's really only large businesses and financially successful small traders who could be prepared by upgrading. The cost of a suitable vehicle is still very high partly due to Covid. Also, we are constantly told that we are in the midst of a cost of living crises which is pushing people into poverty. This is the wrong time to use the excuse of an "environmental crises" to implement a scheme which will inevitably push these same people further into the red. __ 3 and 4) "Poorest" is a vague term. It's very possible somebody is working and earning a reasonable wage but once bills and costs are taken into account they have less disposable income than somebody on benefits. As both likely live in the same neighborhood point 3 is moot. __ 5) An significant objection to ULEZ is that the cost of suitable replacement is excessive. Besides under Gordon Browns government people were encouraged to switch to diesel for environmental reasons, as such many lower paid are still subject to repayments on their vehicles. Should we punish people for following government advice?! __ 6) It's very clear that the government wants it to go through (despite what they say publicly) this doesn't mean that Sadiq has to force it through! It seems very hypocritical to see a Labour mayor hammer working class people financially. __ 7) ULEZ wasn't introduced by Boris, it was an idea dreamt up during his time as mayor. This doesn't mean it has to be implemented. __ 8) Why should the burden of the deficit in public transport funding be carried by those least able to afford it? __ 9) Because the country is skint due to a number of reasons, a major one being covid and the panicked knee jerk response to it. It's obvious that British people can't afford ULEZ and that our leaders are too short sighted and not bright enough to figure out a better solution. | |||
| |||
"Seems to be a bit of tension between the mayor and SKS over this issue It's rather unnecessary. Uxbridge was not won even during Labour's victory in the late 90s. Torie's margin in Uxbridge was reduced down to 500 votes. From 15% down to 1.6%, and that's with a poor turnout." I agree but he seems miffed by it nonetheless. | |||
| |||
"As the owner of a non compliant( due mainly to age) vehicle, I would have like to have seen the ever decreasing number of such vehicles (and in my case their drivers) being allowed to disappear of the scene gracefully. Such a move would have earned Khan a lot more respect than the inevitable resentment which he will soon be enjoying when this goes through. None of this would be so bad were it not for the sheer hypocrisy of the policy of unbridled growth, development and overpopulation of London but, hey ho, it helps people get rich which is what life is all about. It would not be so bad if there had ever been a plan to limit growth to net zero. Some chance." I disagree with that. I am still on the hunt for a nice RG500 gamma to ride, the smell and clouds of two stroke oil, you just can't beat it. | |||
"If you people think LTNs are a good idea then you tell that to the people who lost trade because of it" Very true! LTN is the start of 15min cities | |||
"If you people think LTNs are a good idea then you tell that to the people who lost trade because of it Very true! LTN is the start of 15min cities " I’ve yet to see anyone explain successfully why 15 min cities are a bad thing. | |||
"If you people think LTNs are a good idea then you tell that to the people who lost trade because of it Very true! LTN is the start of 15min cities " So, what is wrong with the 15 minute cities concept? | |||
"If you people think LTNs are a good idea then you tell that to the people who lost trade because of it Very true! LTN is the start of 15min cities" "So, what is wrong with the 15 minute cities concept?" The 15-minute city is a fine idea, everything you need within a 15 minute walk, lovely. It's when councils get involved and start to believe that the 15 minute walk is the important point. Then they make car travel difficult to 'incentivise' people to make the walk. | |||
"If you people think LTNs are a good idea then you tell that to the people who lost trade because of it Very true! LTN is the start of 15min cities So, what is wrong with the 15 minute cities concept? The 15-minute city is a fine idea, everything you need within a 15 minute walk, lovely. It's when councils get involved and start to believe that the 15 minute walk is the important point. Then they make car travel difficult to 'incentivise' people to make the walk." People are by and large lazy. They sometimes need incentives to do something, especially if they can’t see the greater good in it. | |||
"If you people think LTNs are a good idea then you tell that to the people who lost trade because of it Very true! LTN is the start of 15min cities So, what is wrong with the 15 minute cities concept? The 15-minute city is a fine idea, everything you need within a 15 minute walk, lovely. It's when councils get involved and start to believe that the 15 minute walk is the important point. Then they make car travel difficult to 'incentivise' people to make the walk." I'd love a 15 min city. Although as I'm getting older, I'm also contemplating the country with my dirty diesel to get into town when needed. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"The 15-minute city is a fine idea, everything you need within a 15 minute walk, lovely. It's when councils get involved and start to believe that the 15 minute walk is the important point. Then they make car travel difficult to 'incentivise' people to make the walk." "People are by and large lazy. They sometimes need incentives to do something, especially if they can’t see the greater good in it." Again, the point of the 15-minute city is that everything is close so people don't *need* a car. Making it so that they can't *have* a car is a very different thing. An 'incentive' is giving people something nice, so that they will change their behaviour. Doing something bad to make them change their behaviour is called 'punishment'. | |||
| |||
"Its funny though that Sadiq Khan wants people to travel by public transport, walking and bikes which is fine but he travels to work in a 4x4 vehichle. Now people can say what they want but I remember when Boris Johnson when he was Mayor he use to ride a bike to City Hall. So maybe Sadiq Khan should practice what he preaches." Khan uses the tube regularly, as it happens. Few lads at work have seen him around. | |||
"If you people think LTNs are a good idea then you tell that to the people who lost trade because of it Very true! LTN is the start of 15min cities I’ve yet to see anyone explain successfully why 15 min cities are a bad thing." In the terms of this site it will reduce your pool of potential swing partners especially outside of London as car free zones will get rid of taxis and public transport is poor in many area’s. | |||
"People need to wake up and see which way the wind is blowing about climate change. We will all have to make compromises about how we live our future lives and the cost of starting to make those changes early will be a lot lower than kicking the can down the road and stopping the ULEZ expansion. The Mayor has a hard job. When that runs into different political ideology, you end up with central government undermining its success by failing to fund a proper scrappage scheme. The Mayor can do that, at further cost to local services as money is diverted. SKS and RS should listen to the majority of country (not the Uxbridge voters) who want them to take action now despite the cost. Personally I’d like to see those who can afford to bear the scrappage costs doing so and those on lower incomes / key worker roles supported to make the transition. The 2030 ban on petrol cars won’t affect existing cars from being used as the rules stand today. The EU has announced that petrol / diesel sales can be sold from 2035 provided they run on zero emission e-fuels following pressure from the main European car makers who don’t want to lose sales from petrol lovers. Embrace the future, forget the past, it’s history. " You say that the majority of the country is in favour of ULEZ, I wonder whether these same people would still be in favour of it if it came to THEIR hometown and affected them? I agree that the majority (myself included) want to take positive actions to protect the environment (including reducing fossil fuel use) but this mad Net Zero race to the bottom will have the effect of a piss in the ocean compared to the emissions of larger countries such as China, India, USA etc. | |||
"People need to wake up and see which way the wind is blowing about climate change. We will all have to make compromises about how we live our future lives and the cost of starting to make those changes early will be a lot lower than kicking the can down the road and stopping the ULEZ expansion. The Mayor has a hard job. When that runs into different political ideology, you end up with central government undermining its success by failing to fund a proper scrappage scheme. The Mayor can do that, at further cost to local services as money is diverted. SKS and RS should listen to the majority of country (not the Uxbridge voters) who want them to take action now despite the cost. Personally I’d like to see those who can afford to bear the scrappage costs doing so and those on lower incomes / key worker roles supported to make the transition. The 2030 ban on petrol cars won’t affect existing cars from being used as the rules stand today. The EU has announced that petrol / diesel sales can be sold from 2035 provided they run on zero emission e-fuels following pressure from the main European car makers who don’t want to lose sales from petrol lovers. Embrace the future, forget the past, it’s history. You say that the majority of the country is in favour of ULEZ, I wonder whether these same people would still be in favour of it if it came to THEIR hometown and affected them? I agree that the majority (myself included) want to take positive actions to protect the environment (including reducing fossil fuel use) but this mad Net Zero race to the bottom will have the effect of a piss in the ocean compared to the emissions of larger countries such as China, India, USA etc. " Why would procrastinating on transitioning to a reduced CO2 output help? Surely that would leave the UK lagging behind. We in the UK have nearly as much CO2 per capita as China. Who by the way are leading the world in renewable investment. Why shouldn't the UK do it's part? Seems like a weak excuse to leave us behind and reliant on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, the prices of which the UK has zero control over. | |||
"People need to wake up and see which way the wind is blowing about climate change. We will all have to make compromises about how we live our future lives and the cost of starting to make those changes early will be a lot lower than kicking the can down the road and stopping the ULEZ expansion. The Mayor has a hard job. When that runs into different political ideology, you end up with central government undermining its success by failing to fund a proper scrappage scheme. The Mayor can do that, at further cost to local services as money is diverted. SKS and RS should listen to the majority of country (not the Uxbridge voters) who want them to take action now despite the cost. Personally I’d like to see those who can afford to bear the scrappage costs doing so and those on lower incomes / key worker roles supported to make the transition. The 2030 ban on petrol cars won’t affect existing cars from being used as the rules stand today. The EU has announced that petrol / diesel sales can be sold from 2035 provided they run on zero emission e-fuels following pressure from the main European car makers who don’t want to lose sales from petrol lovers. Embrace the future, forget the past, it’s history. You say that the majority of the country is in favour of ULEZ, I wonder whether these same people would still be in favour of it if it came to THEIR hometown and affected them? I agree that the majority (myself included) want to take positive actions to protect the environment (including reducing fossil fuel use) but this mad Net Zero race to the bottom will have the effect of a piss in the ocean compared to the emissions of larger countries such as China, India, USA etc. Why would procrastinating on transitioning to a reduced CO2 output help? Surely that would leave the UK lagging behind. We in the UK have nearly as much CO2 per capita as China. Who by the way are leading the world in renewable investment. Why shouldn't the UK do it's part? Seems like a weak excuse to leave us behind and reliant on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, the prices of which the UK has zero control over." While it’s true china gone big on renewables there are issues such as hydro flooding vast areas and china is still expanding the number of coal power stations with output 3.5 times higher then 2004. | |||
"People need to wake up and see which way the wind is blowing about climate change. We will all have to make compromises about how we live our future lives and the cost of starting to make those changes early will be a lot lower than kicking the can down the road and stopping the ULEZ expansion. The Mayor has a hard job. When that runs into different political ideology, you end up with central government undermining its success by failing to fund a proper scrappage scheme. The Mayor can do that, at further cost to local services as money is diverted. SKS and RS should listen to the majority of country (not the Uxbridge voters) who want them to take action now despite the cost. Personally I’d like to see those who can afford to bear the scrappage costs doing so and those on lower incomes / key worker roles supported to make the transition. The 2030 ban on petrol cars won’t affect existing cars from being used as the rules stand today. The EU has announced that petrol / diesel sales can be sold from 2035 provided they run on zero emission e-fuels following pressure from the main European car makers who don’t want to lose sales from petrol lovers. Embrace the future, forget the past, it’s history. You say that the majority of the country is in favour of ULEZ, I wonder whether these same people would still be in favour of it if it came to THEIR hometown and affected them? I agree that the majority (myself included) want to take positive actions to protect the environment (including reducing fossil fuel use) but this mad Net Zero race to the bottom will have the effect of a piss in the ocean compared to the emissions of larger countries such as China, India, USA etc. Why would procrastinating on transitioning to a reduced CO2 output help? Surely that would leave the UK lagging behind. We in the UK have nearly as much CO2 per capita as China. Who by the way are leading the world in renewable investment. Why shouldn't the UK do it's part? Seems like a weak excuse to leave us behind and reliant on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, the prices of which the UK has zero control over. While it’s true china gone big on renewables there are issues such as hydro flooding vast areas and china is still expanding the number of coal power stations with output 3.5 times higher then 2004." Indeed. They have lots of issues to sort out. Not sure why this would excuse us from doing our part. | |||
"Why would procrastinating on transitioning to a reduced CO2 output help?" It will be cheaper. All this new green technology costs money, and technology gets cheaper as it matures. If we leave the transition to later, it'll be cheaper to implement. "Surely that would leave the UK lagging behind." Is it a race? Do we get a prize for getting to zero carbon first? "Seems like a weak excuse to leave us behind and reliant on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, the prices of which the UK has zero control over." Why would fossil fuels get more expensive? The technology is mature, and well understood. As other countries transition, demand for fossil fuels will fall, and prices will drop. | |||
"Why would procrastinating on transitioning to a reduced CO2 output help? It will be cheaper. All this new green technology costs money, and technology gets cheaper as it matures. If we leave the transition to later, it'll be cheaper to implement. " That's just the implementation cost. Surely we want to generating from renewables asap to reduce long term costs. The sooner it's up and running, the less we have to rely on oil and gas. Which is expensive, compared to say wind or sunlight, or waves etc. " Surely that would leave the UK lagging behind. Is it a race? Do we get a prize for getting to zero carbon first? " Yes, so we can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. You know, to tackle climate change. And to remove us from the dependency on expensive energy production " Seems like a weak excuse to leave us behind and reliant on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, the prices of which the UK has zero control over. Why would fossil fuels get more expensive? The technology is mature, and well understood. As other countries transition, demand for fossil fuels will fall, and prices will drop." Fossil fuels are a finite resource and will become increasingly expensive over time. The prices of which are set externally to the UK. The sooner we can be free from this the better. | |||
"Why would procrastinating on transitioning to a reduced CO2 output help?" "It will be cheaper. All this new green technology costs money, and technology gets cheaper as it matures. If we leave the transition to later, it'll be cheaper to implement." "That's just the implementation cost. Surely we want to generating from renewables asap to reduce long term costs. The sooner it's up and running, the less we have to rely on oil and gas. Which is expensive, compared to say wind or sunlight, or waves etc." 'Renewables' aren't free. There's a lot of maintenance needed, and replacements to be budgeted for. And we don't know the real cost because we don't have a storage system yet. Maybe fossil fuels will turn out to be cheaper. "Surely that would leave the UK lagging behind." "Is it a race? Do we get a prize for getting to zero carbon first?" "Yes, so we can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. You know, to tackle climate change. And to remove us from the dependency on expensive energy production" Yes, but to those that don't believe in a climate emergency, that prize is not worth having. "Seems like a weak excuse to leave us behind and reliant on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, the prices of which the UK has zero control over." "Why would fossil fuels get more expensive? The technology is mature, and well understood. As other countries transition, demand for fossil fuels will fall, and prices will drop." "Fossil fuels are a finite resource and will become increasingly expensive over time. The prices of which are set externally to the UK. The sooner we can be free from this the better." I disagree, I think fossil fuels will get cheaper as demand lessens. But we agree that getting rid of them is a desirable thing. | |||
"Why would procrastinating on transitioning to a reduced CO2 output help? It will be cheaper. All this new green technology costs money, and technology gets cheaper as it matures. If we leave the transition to later, it'll be cheaper to implement. That's just the implementation cost. Surely we want to generating from renewables asap to reduce long term costs. The sooner it's up and running, the less we have to rely on oil and gas. Which is expensive, compared to say wind or sunlight, or waves etc. 'Renewables' aren't free. There's a lot of maintenance needed, and replacements to be budgeted for. And we don't know the real cost because we don't have a storage system yet. Maybe fossil fuels will turn out to be cheaper. Surely that would leave the UK lagging behind. Is it a race? Do we get a prize for getting to zero carbon first? Yes, so we can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. You know, to tackle climate change. And to remove us from the dependency on expensive energy production Yes, but to those that don't believe in a climate emergency, that prize is not worth having. Seems like a weak excuse to leave us behind and reliant on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, the prices of which the UK has zero control over. Why would fossil fuels get more expensive? The technology is mature, and well understood. As other countries transition, demand for fossil fuels will fall, and prices will drop. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and will become increasingly expensive over time. The prices of which are set externally to the UK. The sooner we can be free from this the better. I disagree, I think fossil fuels will get cheaper as demand lessens. But we agree that getting rid of them is a desirable thing." "Yes, but to those that don't believe in a climate emergency, that prize is not worth having." Should energy policy be designed to please people who don't understand what science is or how it works? I'd argue that real life information is a better basis for making decisions. | |||
"Yes, but to those that don't believe in a climate emergency, that prize is not worth having." "Should energy policy be designed to please people who don't understand what science is or how it works?" I didn't say it should. You put forward "lagging behind" as a reason to get on with change. I just pointed out that some people don't see that as a good reason. | |||
"Yes, but to those that don't believe in a climate emergency, that prize is not worth having. Should energy policy be designed to please people who don't understand what science is or how it works? I didn't say it should. You put forward "lagging behind" as a reason to get on with change. I just pointed out that some people don't see that as a good reason." Got you. Some people think aliens built the pyramids, the moon is made of cheese. We shouldn't legislate to please these people. In my opinion. But that's not how the world works sadly. | |||
| |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative?" The main thing now for the outling areas has to be to improved public transport bus and rail. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What about all the emissions from boilers in houses factories and offices in London and emissions blown into the zone from outside, if the cars are made extinct there'll still be dirty air. Zero carbon is not achieveable. " Can I add to your list generators most of witch run on Diesel sum are run just to test sum are bigger and run back on the the grid to help supply at peek times. | |||
"SKS has said this morning; “I have looked at it myself, looked at the legal provision, I think it is difficult to simply say you can ignore the legal requirement to do something about this so the Mayor, in fairness, is between a rock and a hard place on this.” There is a legal obligation on the UK to quickly lower NO2 after a ruling in 2021 from the CJEU I believe (can't find anything else) and ClientEarth say the evidence clearly shows that Clean Air Zones are the best way to do this. We know that ULEZ is going to hurt the ordinary folk in the pocket, but, is there an alternative? ULEZ zones only work if they provide alternatives, for example, investing in better public transport. There is a low emissions zone in Bristol, which would be fine, but there's been no investment in public transport to allow people to get in and out of the city more easily." cough cough The first new train station in Bristol for almost a century has been formally opened, with six more planned across the wider region. Passengers can start using Portway train station from Tuesday, August 1, with daily services taking 24 minutes into Temple Meads. The train station was built in the existing Portway park and ride, just off Junction 18 of the M5 near Avonmouth, costing £5.8 million. Services will run every half hour between Temple Meads and Avonmouth and hourly to Severn Beach. Nah no investment at all | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"the UK is full of migrants , not the ones you think .. Southerners who go and live in others parts of UK where it s cheaper ." With policies like this and the effects of London being used as giant monopoly board for years by successive governments are you really surprised?? | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Lets cut the crap, ULEZ while it was Boris Johnson's idea was implemented in 2019, 3 three years after he left. Since then Khan expanded it twice now at a time when people finances are tight already. Now he talks about implementing it to reduce air pollution in London but thing is the Underground has way worse pollution then what cars emiss but I don't hear him say anything that so its a cash cow as well as these dumb stupid LTNs schemes too" You're confusing "has pollution" with 'creates pollution '. Cars create more pollution than the underground trains. | |||
"So,Johnson introduced the ULEZ and Grant Shapps made the expansion of it a condition of TfL’s funding but somehow it’s all Sadiq Khan’s fault "Nobody is forcing Sadiq to pull the trigger. | |||
"Lets cut the crap, ULEZ while it was Boris Johnson's idea was implemented in 2019, 3 three years after he left. Since then Khan expanded it twice now at a time when people finances are tight already. Now he talks about implementing it to reduce air pollution in London but thing is the Underground has way worse pollution then what cars emiss but I don't hear him say anything that so its a cash cow as well as these dumb stupid LTNs schemes too You're confusing "has pollution" with 'creates pollution '. Cars create more pollution than the underground trains. "ok but lets agree that the Underground has pollution too because it does, whats done about that? | |||
"Lets cut the crap, ULEZ while it was Boris Johnson's idea was implemented in 2019, 3 three years after he left. Since then Khan expanded it twice now at a time when people finances are tight already. Now he talks about implementing it to reduce air pollution in London but thing is the Underground has way worse pollution then what cars emiss but I don't hear him say anything that so its a cash cow as well as these dumb stupid LTNs schemes too You're confusing "has pollution" with 'creates pollution '. Cars create more pollution than the underground trains. ok but lets agree that the Underground has pollution too because it does, whats done about that? "What's this got to do with the ULEZ? What do you mean "has pollution"? | |||
| |||
"Ok forget that I mention pollution or ULEZ because ULEZ is just one of many reasons why I dont want Khan to be London Mayor anymore" | |||
"Lets cut the crap, ULEZ while it was Boris Johnson's idea was implemented in 2019, 3 three years after he left. Since then Khan expanded it twice now at a time when people finances are tight already. Now he talks about implementing it to reduce air pollution in London but thing is the Underground has way worse pollution then what cars emiss but I don't hear him say anything that so its a cash cow as well as these dumb stupid LTNs schemes too You're confusing "has pollution" with 'creates pollution '. Cars create more pollution than the underground trains. ok but lets agree that the Underground has pollution too because it does, whats done about that?
What's this got to do with the ULEZ?
What do you mean "has pollution"?"If Khan is so concerned about Londons pollution and air quality that he has to bring in ULEZ then surely he should do something about the air quality down in the underground system? Oh but of course there is no money to be made from cleaning up the underground it will only cost TFL money to dothat | |||
| |||
"I've noticed recently in the anti ULEZ circles that they're all suddenly talking about London Underground air quality. Literally, all the weird conspiracy youtube channels are talking about this too. This really isn't the "gotcha" moment you think it is. Are they all just parroting themselves?" People are easily distracted. 'Don't worry about cars producing pollution, look at this unrated distraction over here'. | |||
"I've noticed recently in the anti ULEZ circles that they're all suddenly talking about London Underground air quality. Literally, all the weird conspiracy youtube channels are talking about this too. This really isn't the "gotcha" moment you think it is. Are they all just parroting themselves?" It replacing the look at China phrase. | |||
| |||
"I have just seen a article in guardian that experts are calling for a ULEZ on buildings as that is the source of half the pollution in central London." Now that will be an interesting through a hospital loses power and runs is generation plant and gets fined. So should ULEZ also be extended to construction sites didders, generators, dump trucks and other plant. All running on Diesel. | |||
"I've noticed recently in the anti ULEZ circles that they're all suddenly talking about London Underground air quality. Literally, all the weird conspiracy youtube channels are talking about this too. This really isn't the "gotcha" moment you think it is. Are they all just parroting themselves?" Under ground is high in Co2 but low In No2 and it is Diesel fumes that do the damage. Wonder if any one hase done asbestos air tests with the age of schools, Hospitals, the tube and social housing is probably above where you would like it to be | |||
"Under ground is high in Co2 but low In No2 and it is Diesel fumes that do the damage." The Underground isn't particularly high in CO2. It's certainly higher than the streets are, but that's because it's an enclosed space with thousands of people crammed into it, with all of them breathing. Concert halls and theatres show much higher levels of CO2 at the end of shows. Not that it matters, as CO2 is the only gas that human beings can detect when it gets to dangerous levels. I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are diesel fumes in the Underground. | |||
".. Now that will be an interesting through a hospital loses power and runs is generation plant and gets fined. " Maybe the hospitals have Euro 6 spec diesels? | |||
| |||
"I dont think Green policies should exist fpr now if its going to cost a lot more to be healthier during tough econonic times" But that line of thinking would support other measures that support better health, being scrapped whilst financially strapped. The ulez changes are to reduce NO2 and small particulate pollution, which lead to thousands of deaths and cause many more people to be suffering major health problems. The evidence is clear that the changes reduce the harms. | |||
"I dont think Green policies should exist fpr now if its going to cost a lot more to be healthier during tough econonic times But that line of thinking would support other measures that support better health, being scrapped whilst financially strapped. The ulez changes are to reduce NO2 and small particulate pollution, which lead to thousands of deaths and cause many more people to be suffering major health problems. The evidence is clear that the changes reduce the harms. " The only clear evidence is that people are easy to manipulate under the pretence of saving the environment. Meanwhile, economic growth is the real agenda. | |||
"I dont think Green policies should exist fpr now if its going to cost a lot more to be healthier during tough econonic times But that line of thinking would support other measures that support better health, being scrapped whilst financially strapped. The ulez changes are to reduce NO2 and small particulate pollution, which lead to thousands of deaths and cause many more people to be suffering major health problems. The evidence is clear that the changes reduce the harms. " The ULEZ changes are a cash cow. If they really wanted to reduce NO2 they can just stop non complaint cars entering. We're now hearing of councils charging more parking fees for higher polluting cars? If that doesn't tell you. Nothing more than stealth taxing on the motorist. | |||
"Under ground is high in Co2 but low In No2 and it is Diesel fumes that do the damage. The Underground isn't particularly high in CO2. It's certainly higher than the streets are, but that's because it's an enclosed space with thousands of people crammed into it, with all of them breathing. Concert halls and theatres show much higher levels of CO2 at the end of shows. Not that it matters, as CO2 is the only gas that human beings can detect when it gets to dangerous levels. I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are diesel fumes in the Underground." No one has said there are diesel fumes in the underground | |||
"No one has said there are diesel fumes in the underground" Apart from the guy that said "Under ground is high in Co2 but low In No2 and it is Diesel fumes that do the damage". | |||
"No one has said there are diesel fumes in the underground Apart from the guy that said "Under ground is high in Co2 but low In No2 and it is Diesel fumes that do the damage"." That was me we install Co2 alarms in homes as it's bad for you if to high. I was not implying there is No2 in the underground but at times if you travel with a Battery Co2 moniter it tels you the Oxygen level is low and you should get out. The same when working in confind spaces. | |||
"No one has said there are diesel fumes in the underground" "Apart from the guy that said "Under ground is high in Co2 but low In No2 and it is Diesel fumes that do the damage"." "That was me we install Co2 alarms in homes as it's bad for you if to high. I was not implying there is No2 in the underground but at times if you travel with a Battery Co2 moniter it tels you the Oxygen level is low and you should get out. The same when working in confind spaces." I'm going to say that you don't install CO2 alarms in homes. I believe that you install carbon monoxide alarms (CO), since those are dirt cheap, and CO can be fatal. As I said above, CO2 is the only gas that the human body can detect, and no one needs a monitor to tell them to get away from it | |||
"I dont think Green policies should exist fpr now if its going to cost a lot more to be healthier during tough econonic times But that line of thinking would support other measures that support better health, being scrapped whilst financially strapped. The ulez changes are to reduce NO2 and small particulate pollution, which lead to thousands of deaths and cause many more people to be suffering major health problems. The evidence is clear that the changes reduce the harms. " Who knows one person who has died from small partical pollution ….. as I said previously I am an asthmatic and cycle in most days to central london 12.5 miles for the last 20 years / my Athsma is better now than ever before . Don’t believe Khans lies he is a left wing cheating hypocrite . This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . " Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. " Oh. Look over there | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there "A little legit is welcome, no? As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par. | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par."Providing you quit moaning when others do it | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par.
Providing you quit moaning when others do it"Oh quite the opposite. I believe those elected to office should be held accountable equally, should they not? It’s perfectly acceptable to dig out Mr Khan on waste, if there’s been waste - but his predecessor was legendary for it. A fact easily forgotten (as the residents of Uxbridge did when they attacked Khan over ULEZ) | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par.
Providing you quit moaning when others do it
Oh quite the opposite. I believe those elected to office should be held accountable equally, should they not?
It’s perfectly acceptable to dig out Mr Khan on waste, if there’s been waste - but his predecessor was legendary for it. A fact easily forgotten (as the residents of Uxbridge did when they attacked Khan over ULEZ)"Look over there. Again | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par.
Providing you quit moaning when others do it
Oh quite the opposite. I believe those elected to office should be held accountable equally, should they not?
It’s perfectly acceptable to dig out Mr Khan on waste, if there’s been waste - but his predecessor was legendary for it. A fact easily forgotten (as the residents of Uxbridge did when they attacked Khan over ULEZ)
Look over there. Again "Not a Boris fan but at least when he was Mayer he did something positive - Boris bike , Boris bus , he implemented and fast tracked many important planning permissions providing development creating jobs etc . What will Khan be remembered for ….. : F all apart from misery . | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par.
Providing you quit moaning when others do it
Oh quite the opposite. I believe those elected to office should be held accountable equally, should they not?
It’s perfectly acceptable to dig out Mr Khan on waste, if there’s been waste - but his predecessor was legendary for it. A fact easily forgotten (as the residents of Uxbridge did when they attacked Khan over ULEZ)
Look over there. Again
Not a Boris fan but at least when he was Mayer he did something positive - Boris bike , Boris bus , he implemented and fast tracked many important planning permissions providing development creating jobs etc .
What will Khan be remembered for ….. : F all apart from misery . "The first work on the ‘Boris Bike’ (feasibility/planning) was done by Ken Livingstone when he was mayor. | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par.
Providing you quit moaning when others do it
Oh quite the opposite. I believe those elected to office should be held accountable equally, should they not?
It’s perfectly acceptable to dig out Mr Khan on waste, if there’s been waste - but his predecessor was legendary for it. A fact easily forgotten (as the residents of Uxbridge did when they attacked Khan over ULEZ)
Look over there. Again
Not a Boris fan but at least when he was Mayer he did something positive - Boris bike , Boris bus , he implemented and fast tracked many important planning permissions providing development creating jobs etc .
What will Khan be remembered for ….. : F all apart from misery .
The first work on the ‘Boris Bike’ (feasibility/planning) was done by Ken Livingstone when he was mayor.
"According to Andrew Gilligan, it was the Tories who first proposed a cycle hire scheme, 6 months before Ken Livingstone made a commitment. Great to see parties working together for the benefit of citizens  | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par.
Providing you quit moaning when others do it
Oh quite the opposite. I believe those elected to office should be held accountable equally, should they not?
It’s perfectly acceptable to dig out Mr Khan on waste, if there’s been waste - but his predecessor was legendary for it. A fact easily forgotten (as the residents of Uxbridge did when they attacked Khan over ULEZ)
Look over there. Again
Not a Boris fan but at least when he was Mayer he did something positive - Boris bike , Boris bus , he implemented and fast tracked many important planning permissions providing development creating jobs etc .
What will Khan be remembered for ….. : F all apart from misery .
The first work on the ‘Boris Bike’ (feasibility/planning) was done by Ken Livingstone when he was mayor.
"….. and Khan ???? He will be remembered for being the a ruthless human parasite . Needs squashing . | |||
" This is a tax on getting money back from billions of pounds he has spunked away over the last 8 years . Wait til we tell you about the previous guy. Oh. Look over there
A little legit is welcome, no?
As soon as Mr Khan comes up with something comparable to the garden bridge debacle, I’ll accept his level of waste is on-par.
Providing you quit moaning when others do it
Oh quite the opposite. I believe those elected to office should be held accountable equally, should they not?
It’s perfectly acceptable to dig out Mr Khan on waste, if there’s been waste - but his predecessor was legendary for it. A fact easily forgotten (as the residents of Uxbridge did when they attacked Khan over ULEZ)
Look over there. Again
Not a Boris fan but at least when he was Mayer he did something positive - Boris bike , Boris bus , he implemented and fast tracked many important planning permissions providing development creating jobs etc .
What will Khan be remembered for ….. : F all apart from misery .
The first work on the ‘Boris Bike’ (feasibility/planning) was done by Ken Livingstone when he was mayor.
….. and Khan ???? He will be remembered for being the a ruthless human parasite . Needs squashing . "Overall he’s been a solid Mayor IMO. An improvement over Johnson for sure. I believe he still leads polling for the 2024 mayoral race - though ULEZ has harmed his popularity somewhat. We’ll see what happens when other candidates are named (as opposed to just their parties) | |||
| |||
