Do you want to discuss boring politics? (47 Viewers)

[Mcbean]

My diesel is 7 years old and Euro 5 so would require ULEZ charge - the mot shows it very clean on emissions - I can’t afford to replace it yet

 

---

[hill83]

I’ve got a 2009 shit box petrol Ford Focus worth about £2k (if you only look at it when buying it when it’s dark). And assumed I’d have to pay the ULEZ charges. Just checked and I don’t.

Is it just diesels with the issue then? Because there’s definitely cheap old petrol cars out there that will be fine if so.

 

[duffer]

Stepping away from ULEZ for a moment, but on a related thread, it just seems obvious to me that we have to move to an economic system that puts the environment at its centre.

It is utterly bizarre that we're actively, deliberately wrecking the planet because we can't "afford" to do things differently.

I'm not going to start locking-on or chucking orange flour around, but I do worry what kind of world my kids, or their kids, are going to live in. Answers on a postcard, please.

 

[PVA]

I’ve got a 2009 shit box petrol Ford Focus worth about £2k (if you only look at it when buying it when it’s dark). And assumed I’d have to pay the ULEZ charges. Just checked and I don’t.

Is it just diesels with the issue then? Because there’s definitely cheap old petrol cars out there that will be fine if so.

Petrols made since 2006 and diesels made since 2015 are compliant

 

[hill83]

Petrols made since 2006 and diesels made since 2015 are compliant

So it’s not beyond the realms of possibility for people at the lower end of the wage bracket to get a car that’s ok then. I was thinking you’d be needing a bells and whistles electric car or something.

 

[duffer]

I’ve got a 2009 shit box petrol Ford Focus worth about £2k (if you only look at it when buying it when it’s dark). And assumed I’d have to pay the ULEZ charges. Just checked and I don’t.

Is it just diesels with the issue then? Because there’s definitely cheap old petrol cars out there that will be fine if so.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your motor is lovely, and keeping old cars on the road is arguably a very green policy. But at that age it might be heading for an expensive fix at some point, so might not be an ideal solution for everyone.

Also, as demand rises, so do prices - our old (ULEZ compliant) Fiat actually cost me more to buy this year than it would've last year. Conversely my Hyundai diesel (which is marginally newer), will have tanked. I'm flogging it when I get a chance before it's worth bugger all!

 

[hill83]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure your motor is lovely, and keeping old cars on the road is arguably a very green policy. But at that age it might be heading for an expensive fix at some point, so might not be an ideal solution for everyone.

Also, as demand rises, so do prices - our old fiat actually cost me more to buy this year than it would've last year. Conversely my Hyundai diesel (which is marginally newer), will have tanked. I'm flogging it when I get a chance before it's worth bugger all!

Yeah good point to be fair. I’ve had a few bits done, timing belt, full service every year etc. So it’s not dirt cheap overall to run. But not a patch on buying something newer. Plus I don’t care about cars really.

 

[skybluetony176]

I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.

The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.

 

[duffer]

Yeah good point to be fair. I’ve had a few bits done, timing belt, full service every year etc. So it’s not dirt cheap overall to run. But not a patch on buying something newer. Plus I don’t care about cars really.

There's a lot to be said for that mate, and that approach. I love cars and bikes, but there are more important things in life than having a shiny new one, at least to me. Maybe I'd feel different if I was better off!

That said, keeping an old motor on the road feels like a full time job sometimes!

 

[David O'Day]

I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.

The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.

I think it was more of a case of the tories ramping up anti ULEZ feeling during the campaign

Come the general election ULEZ schemes will likely play no part in any election

 

[hill83]

There's a lot to be said for that mate, and that approach. I love cars and bikes, but there are more important things in life than having a shiny new one, at least to me. Maybe I'd feel different if I was better off!

That said, keeping an old motor on the road feels like a full time job sometimes!

Yeah, I could get something a lot better if I wanted but I’d rather spend my money on beer. Might as well be honest ha ha

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.

The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.

It begs the question what the point is if it's so few and they'll become naturally obsolete...

 

[PVA]

I think it was more of a case of the tories ramping up anti ULEZ feeling during the campaign

Come the general election ULEZ schemes will likely play no part in any election

Yes only a very tiny number

Standard right wing tactic of weaponising am issue so that people who aren't even affected by it become scared of it.

 

[duffer]

I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.

The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.

I honestly, and politely, think that's a misunderstanding. A lot of people, even in that part of the world, are struggling but still need their cars.

A lot of them won't have the confidence, time, or funds to to change from one old banger to another. They're going to resent bring forced into it (or into substantial extra expense) without any support, even for those that accept the reasons are justified.

The issue with Heathrow was about noise pollution and night flights as I recall, as much as air quality etc.. I could be wrong there though, I don't live there these days.

 

[clint van damme]

Good old Ed

 

[Grendel]

I wonder how many people who like to get all angry about ULEZ actually drive a non compliant car. Not many I bet. As older older vehicles inevitably get phased out just because they do ULEZ are going to become almost redundant.

The thing I find strange is that this is the constituency that got all angry about pollution when opposing Heathrow runway 3 now getting angry about a measure to cut pollution.

The most recent cat parc data says that the average life of cars prior to scrap is at an all time high

 

[skybluetony176]

It begs the question what the point is if it's so few and they'll become naturally obsolete...

It’s a stop gap. It’s worked too in its objective. The BMJ say the evidence is irrefutable, it’s improved the health of people who live in the zones.

 

[Grendel]

It begs the question what the point is if it's so few and they'll become naturally obsolete...

over 8 million are over 13 years old - as a guess I’d say there must be at least 6 to 8 million diesel vehicles that would be impacted

 

[duffer]

Yes only a very tiny number

Standard right wing tactic of weaponising am issue so that people who aren't even affected by it become scared of it.

You could be right mate, and I'd hate to become a right wing mouthpiece, especially as I'm not getting the going rate for it.

But I think there's a fair amount of justified concern personally, and ignoring it is the wrong approach. Here's the local council (Tory) survey, with some figures that suggest it's not exactly a tiny minority who have issues.

Survey results reveal damaging impact of the Mayor of London's ULEZ plans on Hillingdon - Hillingdon Council

Hillingdon Council's boroughwide survey into the probable impact of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion has provided a snapshot of the detrimental effects it would have on the borough's residents and businesses.

www.hillingdon.gov.uk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

over 8 million are over 13 years old - as a guess I’d say there must be at least 6 to 8 million diesel vehicles that would be impacted

It either affects people, in which case people are affected, or it doesn't in which case it seems a meaningless policy really.

I assume incidentally that classics are exempt?

 

[Grendel]

Yes only a very tiny number

Standard right wing tactic of weaponising am issue so that people who aren't even affected by it become scared of it.

Weaponising 50% of the electorate do much they couldn’t be bothered to vote

 

[PVA]

You could be right mate, and I'd hate to become a right wing mouthpiece, especially as I'm not getting the going rate for it.

But I think there's a fair amount of justified concern personally, and ignoring it is the wrong approach. Here's the local council (Tory) survey, with some figures that suggest it's not exactly a tiny minority who have issues.

I generally agree with your overall view on it

What I mean is they managed to convince a lot of people who it doesn't affect that it's a big issue for them.

 

[PVA]

Weaponising 50% of the electorate do much they couldn’t be bothered to vote

It's OK I didn't expect you to understand.

 

[skybluetony176]

I honestly, and politely, think that's a misunderstanding. A lot of people, even in that part of the world, are struggling but still need their cars.

A lot of them won't have the confidence, time, or funds to to change from one old banger to another. They're going to resent bring forced into it (or into substantial extra expense) without any support, even for those that accept the reasons are justified.

The issue with Heathrow was about noise pollution and night flights as I recall, as much as air quality etc.. I could be wrong there though, I don't live there these days.

Only about 40% of the cars on the road are older than 10 years and only a percentage of them will be diesel, so you’re talking about a percentage of a percentage. I’d also bet that London bucks that trend compared to the rest of the UK precisely because it does have a ULEZ and has done for almost 5 years. You also have to consider that expansion isn’t going to affect those already within the ULEZ so you’re talking about a percentage of a percentage of a percentage.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I generally agree with your overall view on it

What I mean is they managed to convince a lot of people who it doesn't affect that it's a big issue for them.

Isn't a sophisticated electorate one that votes on issues that don't affect them directly? I mean, the state of benefits and dearth of council houses doesn't affect me directly, but it wouldn't stop me voting on policies relating to them.

The implication otherwise is a very Tory I'm alright Jack and sod policies that don't affect me.

 

[PVA]

Isn't a sophisticated electorate one that votes on issues that don't affect them directly? I mean, the state of benefits and dearth of council houses doesn't affect me directly, but it wouldn't stop me voting on policies relating to them.

The implication otherwise I'd a very Tory I'm alright Jack and sod policies that don't affect me.

Yes, that's the point I'm making!

People don't vote Tory because they want to help out those worse off, they vote Tory to benefit themselves.

The vast majority of people who voted Tory in this by election with ULEZ as their main/only motivation aren't doing it to help out the poorest, they're doing it because the Tories have (successfully) made it into a huge issue that affects everyone.

 

[Grendel]

It's OK I didn't expect you to understand.

Well I don’t think anyone can understand a rationale that suggests the opposite of what actually happened in the one by election that this has been an issue with

You don’t agree with Angela Rayners comments then?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yes, that's the point I'm making!

People don't vote Tory because they want to help out those worse off, they vote Tory to benefit themselves.

The vast majority of people who voted Tory in this by election with ULEZ as their main/only motivation aren't doing it to help out the poorest, they're doing it because the Tories have (successfully) made it into a huge issue that affects everyone.

But you were saying it affected a minority so why were they voting on it? The extension of that is social care affects a minority, so why are we voting on it? Care for asylum seekers etc

 

[Grendel]

Yes, that's the point I'm making!

People don't vote Tory because they want to help out those worse off, they vote Tory to benefit themselves.

The vast majority of people who voted Tory in this by election with ULEZ as their main/only motivation aren't doing it to help out the poorest, they're doing it because the Tories have (successfully) made it into a huge issue that affects everyone.

The tory vote declined didn’t it?

 

[Grendel]

But you were saying it affected a minority so why were they voting on it? The extension of that is social care affects a minority, so why are we voting on it? Care for asylum seekers etc

Why bother?

 

[Ian1779]

Yes, that's the point I'm making!

People don't vote Tory because they want to help out those worse off, they vote Tory to benefit themselves.

The vast majority of people who voted Tory in this by election with ULEZ as their main/only motivation aren't doing it to help out the poorest, they're doing it because the Tories have (successfully) made it into a huge issue that affects everyone.

So despite all that Labour couldn’t muster up enough of a vision to inspire 1000 non-voters to turn up to the ballot box and make it all immaterial?

 

[Grendel]

So despite all that Labour couldn’t muster up enough of a vision to inspire 1000 non-voters to turn up to the ballot box and make it all immaterial?

He doesn’t expect you to understand

 

[PVA]

But you were saying it affected a minority so why were they voting on it? The extension of that is social care affects a minority, so why are we voting on it? Care for asylum seekers etc

No I'm saying it affects a minority but the Tories successfully convinced people that it affects more than a minority.

I don't believe people vote Tory to help those worse off, do you?

 

[PVA]

The tory vote declined didn’t it?

Now compare it to other by election results.

It's not difficult.

 

[Grendel]

Now compare it to other by election results.

It's not difficult.

Well it clearly is as no one seems to have a clue what toy are talking about

The tories will regain both the other seats at the general election as the Tory vote didn’t show

Ian, FP and me have all raised the issue of mobilising the vote which you’ve just refused to acknowledge