Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Starmer has said that ULEZ lost it for Labour, which is definitely right, and called on Khan to reflect on it, which isn't particularly helpful to Khan. I don't know if there are any late concessions Khan can make, or whether it's better to go ahead with it and hope that it goes away when more people realise they won't be affected. The problem is that it's a very big thing for a mayor to do. Not like he's got the powers central government has to move the flags around on the map.

The "Socialists" (and Putin-Assad apologists) have spoken, bringing their heavyweight political analysis.

Who said "unprecedented"? And why might Con-Lab swings be harder to achieve than Con-LD ones? It's a mystery.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 3:43 pm Starmer has said that ULEZ lost it for Labour, which is definitely right, and called on Khan to reflect on it, which isn't particularly helpful to Khan. I don't know if there are any late concessions Khan can make, or whether it's better to go ahead with it and hope that it goes away when more people realise they won't be affected. The problem is that it's a very big thing for a mayor to do. Not like he's got the powers central government has to move the flags around on the map.

One of the issues with ULEZ is that a measure to reduce air pollution in the inner areas, where pollution is bad, is being applied to areas where it isn't so bad. And the backlash isn't so much about SUVs and gas-guzzling Chelsea Tractors so much as middle-class people who bought diesels for economy and van drivers, small business and sole traders. The scrappage scheme will help some, but not all by a long way.

There is also talk of further restrictions c2025 which would take cars like mine off the road, despite it being very low emissions.

It's easy to blame red-faced Tories, but that would be missing the mark.

The smart move now would be to double down on what Rayner has cleverly done it at least 1 post-election interview - portray ULEZ as exactly what it is: the right thing to do for a ton of reasons, hamstrung by Tory central govt. who will give billions to their mates for useless PPE or sort out bank accounts for Farage, but won’t subsidise scrappage schemes because their green credentials are worthless and they don’t care about ordinary working people. They want you back working in the city, but don’t care if you choke while doing so while they spend time taking helicopters to their country piles.

Bonus if it can be tied to a particular subset of greed-driven Tories wanting fracking - they’ll blow taxpayer money on that because big oil them, but won’t touch pump subsidies or help you out with a grant to replace your diesel van.

Lay it on super, super thick.

The smart move now would be to double down on what Rayner has cleverly done it at least 1 post-election interview - portray ULEZ as exactly what it is: the right thing to do for a ton of reasons, hamstrung by Tory central govt. who will give billions to their mates for useless PPE or sort out bank accounts for Farage, but won’t subsidise scrappage schemes because their green credentials are worthless and they don’t care about ordinary working people.

Yes, there’s routes out of this problem and Keir could do worse than look at Macron’s EV conversion grants for low income families.

These people were taken seriously by Jez and co,

Is Kerry-Anne Mendacious* deliberately misunderstanding what went on in Somerset yesterday, or is she really that stupid?



See Kerry-Anne, two can play the 'humerous' name-changing game, and my effort is far more accurate than anything you have come up with so far.

Youngian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 5:45 pm
Yes, there’s routes out of this problem and Keir could do worse than look at Macron’s EV conversion grants for low income families.

Lots of that subsidy would get gobbled up by the manufacturers, or at least it normally does. Could that come out of the green infrastructure budget? Might be better than trying to do too much building too fast.

The French subsidy is mainly for garage mechanics, you can buy any old clunker to convert the engine. If you can afford it, Macron would prefer you do your patriotic duty to defend the republic by purchasing a new Citroen EV.

Chair of Uxbridge Labour here

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:06 pm These people were taken seriously by Jez and co,

Not to be outdone by my brother get all the brains Kershaw

Is she out as a rightwing Tory, or does she just see herself as a straight talker? Like other straight talkers, I see she overreacts to typos. ("those who ACTUALLY care").

They're all doing this stuff. Actual Labour general election candidate under Corbyn.

Here's another.

Isn't it likely that the Green Party got all sorts of people in Somerton, and that lots of Labour voters went Lib Dem, very happily?

You wonder whether they really can be that stupid, or they know nothing about politics, or they're just doing it for effect, then you realise that yes, they really are that stupid.

Must admit I'm struggling to completely understand the ULEZ fallout. I was off the understanding that it's part of the effort to reduce carbon emissions and meet targets that the actual Government themselves has committed to and Khan is simply implementing that? Pushed by Shapps himself, apparently? Why's Khan being talked about as if this is just him bringing it in rather than him simply complying with a commitment the Government have made?

As I understand it, government funding for TFL was made conditional on ULEZ expansion. So in effect, in Uxbridge the Tories were campaigning against their own policy. Khan in effect has no choice other than to implement the expansion of the zone. I’m at something of a loss to understand why this seemingly wasn’t communicated more effectively during the by-election campaign.

Exactly? Surely Khan/Labour can just say that he's simply implementing something that the Government committed to? I haven't heard them say that at all so I assume I'm missing something. Maybe this particular expansion is something he's doing off his own back? I'll need to read about it some more.

safe_timber_man wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:17 am Must admit I'm struggling to completely understand the ULEZ fallout. I was off the understanding that it's part of the effort to reduce carbon emissions and meet targets that the actual Government themselves has committed to and Khan is simply implementing that? Pushed by Shapps himself, apparently? Why's Khan being talked about as if this is just him bringing it in rather than him simply complying with a commitment the Government have made?

Indeed.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:49 am

safe_timber_man wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:17 am Must admit I'm struggling to completely understand the ULEZ fallout. I was off the understanding that it's part of the effort to reduce carbon emissions and meet targets that the actual Government themselves has committed to and Khan is simply implementing that? Pushed by Shapps himself, apparently? Why's Khan being talked about as if this is just him bringing it in rather than him simply complying with a commitment the Government have made?

Indeed.

Average voters don't care about correspondence, or who said what.
Many simply wrap their prejudices around events.
See "Bliar's illegal war" - backed by more Tory than Labour MPs.


But there's an opportunity here, similar to the Angela Rayner list above.
It does depend whether Sadiq Khan is onboard with Labour's overall election goals.
I'm too far removed to really know about that.

Here's the plan.

1. Sadiq Khan makes a statement "The people have spoken and I'm a listening Mayor" so I'll suspent expansion of ULEZ.
2. He briefly explains the pressure from central government, but doesn't lat it on thick.
3. Closes by saying that central government will surely understand the will of the people.

The Ball's then in Shapps / Green / Bilko's court to proceed with sanctions against the capital (good luck with that), or back down.


I hope I'm understanding it right.