The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Seat68]

Seems to be a lot of hard to ignore facts there @blandy 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Seems to be a lot of hard to ignore facts there @blandy 

Yeah. That doesn't mean the mayors are all doing a brilliant job, though. They're not all doing a brilliant job, and some of the problems are caused or made worse by them and their teams. But it is a really difficult situation for them.

It's also the case that us lot, the people who just live and work and get what we get are going to have more and more of the unsettling changes to what we can do and how we can do it. Some of it will be uncomfortable. The world is changing fast with the climate and with the levels of pollution and species extinction and crop failure and drought and floods that ultimately we, the humans have caused. Fixing, or mitigating it is going to hurt. Not doing that is going to hurt more. It ought to be more of a thing on the politician's agendas than it is - they are scared (and probably right to be scared) that if they tell us the truth, we'll not vote for them. But they are bottlers.

[Jareth]

I wonder if starmer realises what a spineless void his strategy to win makes him appear. He’s got a lot of work to do when he gets in, just to identify himself to the wider public. 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The Government has made it compulsory, by law, for Cities to reduce air pollution. They did that because they were forced to by the courts. Air pollution is causing huge health problems and early deaths for people living in cities and the Government was forced to act to get this major problem down. It's why diesels cars and older more polluting cars and buses and stuff are more heavily taxed and going out of favour - they kill people and make people ill.

There's basically no one things killing people and making people ill, when it is avoidable is a good idea. Yes the Tory Government was forced into acting by the EU, as well as UK legal stuff, but it's a good thing.

The next question, is that given they are legally required to reduce air pollution to safe levels, how do you do it? Clearly reducing the number of polluting vehicles (as well as other sources of pollution like wood fires and coal fires and etc. is a key part of that.

So Khan has to do it, Burnham, same for Liverpool, Brum, Bristol ...etc.

The next thing is how do they manage to a) reduce the number of polluting vehicles while also providing an alternative means for people to travel, so that particularly those with not much money aren't shafted. And while at the same time the Cities are deprived of resources by the Central tory government.

In central london, there's the best public transport system in the UK - so that's an easy win for Khan. But outside central London it's harder. Yes Manchester has trams, but the network is not that extensive, everywhere else public transport is mostly some small (relatively) tram/rail connections plus diesel buses - which doesn't help, either.

The various mayors are basically stuffed - they legally have to reduce traffic from polluting cars and vans, but they're not given (enough) funding to allow people to trade in their dirty bangers for newer clean cars and they're not given enough money to improve the rail and tram and (clean) bus networks.

That's why people don't like ULEZ and they blame the (Labour) city mayors. But it's central Tory government who should be getting most of the flak for it. It's the lack of coherent joined up, integrated planning and thinking that's to blame, not Khan, or Burnham or whoever who are trying to make the best of a difficult situation, to stop people dying and getting sick.

Surely the better thing pete than taking people off the roads with cars which some people cant afford to do, is make cars

1) more environmentally friendly

2) more affordable 

Lets say hypothetically speaking people did come over the round started using ubers they are actually losing money on all the car tax (or whatever they call it as alot of pwople still pay it) petrol etc.

Restricting people to where they go is not the answer in my opinion. lTNS and ULEZ are nothibg short of a disaster espically LTNS. If you came saw the traffic  round the areas near me due to LTNs you would be shocked. A 15 minute journey can now take over a hour! Thats not looking after the environment 

It would have been interesting if khan lost the last london election as bailey said he would scrap LTNs.  Some of my friends are die hard labour but they voted tory at last vote because of them stated they would scrap LTNs. That shows you how much this kond of shit people hate it.

Only people that like it are people who are at home all the time, dont ahve one near them, or dont drive.

 

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Yeah. That doesn't mean the mayors are all doing a brilliant job, though. They're not all doing a brilliant job, and some of the problems are caused or made worse by them and their teams. But it is a really difficult situation for them.

It's also the case that us lot, the people who just live and work and get what we get are going to have more and more of the unsettling changes to what we can do and how we can do it. Some of it will be uncomfortable. The world is changing fast with the climate and with the levels of pollution and species extinction and crop failure and drought and floods that ultimately we, the humans have caused. Fixing, or mitigating it is going to hurt. Not doing that is going to hurt more. It ought to be more of a thing on the politician's agendas than it is - they are scared (and probably right to be scared) that if they tell us the truth, we'll not vote for them. But they are bottlers.

It’s not the elected regional mayors per se. The reason the Merseyside idea is such a mess is because the individual councils can choose to be individually responsible or do it on a regional basis…

Guess what the Merseyside dickhead councils chose to do…

[villan95]

45 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I wonder if starmer realises what a spineless void his strategy to win makes him appear. He’s got a lot of work to do when he gets in, just to identify himself to the wider public. 

I really hope he's just trying not to frighten the horses before the election and if/when he gets in he's going to be far more progressive and radical than he seems but I'm not holding my breath.

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, villan95 said:

I really hope he's just trying not to frighten the horses before the election and if/when he gets in he's going to be far more progressive and radical than he seems but I'm not holding my breath.

I think that's the only way we can all see it. My opinion is that actually this strategy suits him very well, in that it gives his personality some cover, he isn't a visionary, he's an administrator and currently everyone is allowing him to take the ball to the corner flag. The moment he needs to show something might never come. 

[villan95]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I think that's the only way we can all see it. My opinion is that actually this strategy suits him very well, in that it gives his personality some cover, he isn't a visionary, he's an administrator and currently everyone is allowing him to take the ball to the corner flag. The moment he needs to show something might never come. 

I think playing it safe makes a lot of sense especially when the Tories are continually scoring own goals (to continue the football analogy ) and handing him the win.

However there are situations where he and the shadow cabinet could take positions that would do their popularity no harm but they still won't which I find frustrating.

[markavfc40]

This ULEZ charge only applies to the below doesn't it?

Motorbikes that do not meet Euro 3 standards (most vehicles pre-2007)

Petrol cars and vans that do not meet Euro 4 standards (most vehicles pre-2006)

Diesel cars and vans that do not meet Euro 6 standards (most vehicles pre-2015)

There can't be that many pre 2006 petrol cars can there on the road but I'd imagine a fair few pre 2015 diesels.

The government have actually contributed funds to some local authorities to help with scrappage schemes but haven't offered any extra funding to London. Doesn't take a genius to work out why that is does it. 

It is a shame when you hear that people vote on single issues such as this. We have a party in power that has decimated our public services, forced millions of people into poverty and overseen the biggest drop in living standards since the second world war (all whilst taking us for mugs by feeding us lies and showing contempt) yet people can be sucked into the believe that if we vote for a Tory they'll do what I'd like on this one issue and that is enough for me to turn a blind eye to everything else. I find it pathetic especially on something like ULEZ where as @blandy has explained so well it is the government who have made it compulsory by law to reduce air pollution and there are only so many ways to do that and clearly reducing vehicle pollution is going to have to be one of those ways. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by markavfc40

[blandy]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

Surely the better thing pete than taking people off the roads with cars which some people cant afford to do, is make cars

1) more environmentally friendly

2) more affordable 

Lets say hypothetically speaking people did come over the round started using ubers they are actually losing money on all the car tax (or whatever they call it as alot of pwople still pay it) petrol etc.

Restricting people to where they go is not the answer in my opinion. lTNS and ULEZ are nothibg short of a disaster espically LTNS. If you came saw the traffic  round the areas near me due to LTNs you would be shocked. A 15 minute journey can now take over a hour! Thats not looking after the environment 

It would have been interesting if khan lost the last london election as bailey said he would scrap LTNs.  Some of my friends are die hard labour but they voted tory at last vote because of them stated they would scrap LTNs. That shows you how much this kond of shit people hate it.

Only people that like it are people who are at home all the time, dont ahve one near them, or dont drive.

There's a lot in that Dem

The first thing is cars are more enviro friendly now. It's old cars where the problem lies with ULEZ - the old polluting ones have to pay, the new ones don't.

And yes, it would be nice if new cars were cheaper. It would be nice if everything was cheaper. But it's never going to happen. The best we can hope for is prices stop going up as fast as they are. There's nowt Sadiq Khan can do about the price of cars.

If people ditch their old cars (in outer London), they'll obviously save money on Vehicle Exise duty and on fuel, MoT, insurance and servicing - and that adds up to a lot. But they're then left dependent on what you say is inadequate public transport - and that's definitely even more the case in Manchester, and elsewhere. So investment in better public transport has to be made - and again, that's central (Tory) Government. Or they could do more to encourage electric cars and wotnot, too. But it's not something Khan can do.

No one's restricted where they can go by a ULEZ, they just have to pay to there. WHich is unsatisfactory for them, particularly if they are struggling financially. LTNs seem to be popular with residents where they are, but not with people who want or have to travel through those areas to get to the shops or to work etc. People like that their kids can play in the streets, they like that pollution in their area is much lower. But local business maybe doesn't like that they get less passing custom from non-locals. If LTNs just displace traffic from one route to another, longer and slower route (which they do) then like you say they are not really working as they should. The problem is too many people in too many cars. The answer is fewer people in fewer cars, then everyone wins...but there has to be a viable alternative for people, and that's where the problem manifests itself. Too often there isn't and people just feel picked upon for something they have no alternative but to do.

The country, nationally, need proper grown up Government to bring it all together. Not gonna happen under the tories. Whetehr Labour will be much better is also open to question.

[Davkaus]

To add to @blandy's excellent post on the previous page, while it doesn't tell the whole story, this letter has been doing the rounds, in which current and at the time cabinet minister Grant Schapps spells out that as condition of providing funding to TfL
 

Quote

 

During the Support Period, Transport for London will work in unison with HMG on taking steps to support the safe restart to the transport system and agrees to joint action and oversight by the London Covid Transport Task Force, terms of reference for which are attached. Subject to TfL’s statutory responsibilities (particularly in relation to safety), TfL agrees to:

h. The immediate reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these charges, in accordance with the relevant legal powers and decision-making processes

 

It doesn't mean that Khan can wash his hands of every detail of the London ULEZ, but it is incredibly disingenuous of the government to push for a widened scope of the charges, while their local candidates chastise Khan for it and campaign on scrapping it. They know exactly what they're doing, it's all about conning voters.

[markavfc40]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

They know exactly what they're doing, it's all about conning voters.

And they have certainly conned plenty but we seem to live in a country now where we have lots of people who will turn on the people pointing out the con rather than turning on those who conned them. Brexit being the prime example. Frustrating times. 

[Davkaus]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Thanks for clarifying your position but you never seem to criticise them? Doesnt seem very balanced to me just my opinion

I think there's a couple of bits to this.

I don't bother criticising Labour nationally anywhere near as much as I do the tories, because Labour's current policies and ideas are wholly irrelevant - give it a couple of years of Starmer's government and I suspect you might start thinking I'm a tory. I do bitch about the local Labour council, but not here, because nobody on here gives a shit about local Nottingham politics. 

FWIW, my favoured candidates lately have been:

2019: Abstain

2017 Labour

2015 Crudely drawn picture of a spunking cock and balls 

2010 Lib Dems

2015's candidate is likely to win my vote again at this rate  

Edited July 22, 2023 by Davkaus

[chrisp65]

23 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

This ULEZ charge only applies to the below doesn't it?

Motorbikes that do not meet Euro 3 standards (most vehicles pre-2007)

Petrol cars and vans that do not meet Euro 4 standards (most vehicles pre-2006)

Diesel cars and vans that do not meet Euro 6 standards (most vehicles pre-2015)

There can't be that many pre 2006 petrol cars can there on the road but I'd imagine a fair few pre 2015 diesels.

The government have actually contributed funds to some local authorities to help with scrappage schemes but haven't offered any extra funding to London. Doesn't take a genius to work out why that is does it. 

It is a shame when you hear that people vote on single issues such as this. We have a party in power that has decimated our public services, forced millions of people into poverty and overseen the biggest drop in living standards since the second world war (all whilst taking us for mugs by feeding us lies and showing contempt) yet people can be sucked into the believe that if we vote for a Tory they'll do what I'd like on this one issue and that is enough for me to turn a blind eye to everything else. I find it pathetic especially on something like ULEZ where as @blandy has explained so well it is the government who have made it compulsory by law to reduce air pollution and there are only so many ways to do that and clearly reducing vehicle pollution is going to have to be one of those ways. 

Could part of the problem here be that people did vote on a single issue because it is important locally and Starmer has taken time and effort to quite deliberately not make many points of difference between his Labour and the tories.

Water, he’s decided he didn’t want to nationalise it. Strikes, he’s against them. Money for school meals, not a priority. Benefits for third children, no money for that sort of stuff sorry. Money to save the environment, sorry can’t afford to do that anymore.

In making himself look very similar to the incumbent, it made the only point of difference the ULEZ, and then briefed journalists that if they lost in Ruislip, it would be because of ULEZ, giving people added incentive to send that very message.

There are lessons to be learned. I don’t think either big party will be interested in learning.

 

[one_ian_taylor]

31 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think there's a couple of bits to this.

I don't bother criticising Labour nationally anywhere near as much as I do the tories, because Labour's current policies and ideas are wholly irrelevant - give it a couple of years of Starmer's government and I suspect you might start thinking I'm a tory. I do bitch about the local Labour council, but not here, because nobody on here gives a shit about local Nottingham politics. 

FWIW, my favoured candidates lately have been:

2019: Abstain

2017 Labour

2015 Crudely drawn picture of a spunking cock and balls 

2010 Lib Dems

2015's candidate is likely to win my vote again at this rate  

And why not? After 8 years worth of practice I'm  sure it will be a more polished effort this time round

[Jareth]

Starmer has prioritised winning at all costs - and is now taking positions on environmental issues which no progressive should ever take. It doesn’t have to be like this, he has gone too far and I think it is out of fear. He’s a coward. 

The gall of the man to tell Khan to reflect on his Ulez policy - Khan has made clear that poor air quality in London mostly affects the poorest and proportionally ethnic minorities - it was not long ago that little girl died of athsma brought on by air quality - yet Starmer will throw all of that under the bus in pursuit of what he thinks is the way to win. He can easily be pro-green and still win. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Jareth

[Demitri_C]

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I think there's a couple of bits to this.

I don't bother criticising Labour nationally anywhere near as much as I do the tories, because Labour's current policies and ideas are wholly irrelevant - give it a couple of years of Starmer's government and I suspect you might start thinking I'm a tory. I do bitch about the local Labour council, but not here, because nobody on here gives a shit about local Nottingham politics. 

FWIW, my favoured candidates lately have been:

2019: Abstain

2017 Labour

2015 Crudely drawn picture of a spunking cock and balls 

2010 Lib Dems

2015's candidate is likely to win my vote again at this rate  

Fair. It wasnt a direct attack on you by the way glad you didnt take it personally just seemed to me you were more labour due to the lack of criticism.  Yeah my previous council was labour too awful. Im under a tory one at the moment and surprisingly its ok. Not great but ok.

2015

Im gonna vote lib dems as its a protest vote as i find the main two parties are absolute shite.  Id happily both parties disbanded and two new parties formed so we might get real change that the country needs. Sadly wont happen.

I just hope when labour when next election there is abit more balanced view on here

[Demitri_C]

4 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

This ULEZ charge only applies to the below doesn't it?

Motorbikes that do not meet Euro 3 standards (most vehicles pre-2007)

Petrol cars and vans that do not meet Euro 4 standards (most vehicles pre-2006)

Diesel cars and vans that do not meet Euro 6 standards (most vehicles pre-2015)

There can't be that many pre 2006 petrol cars can there on the road but I'd imagine a fair few pre 2015 diesels.

The government have actually contributed funds to some local authorities to help with scrappage schemes but haven't offered any extra funding to London. Doesn't take a genius to work out why that is does it. 

It is a shame when you hear that people vote on single issues such as this. We have a party in power that has decimated our public services, forced millions of people into poverty and overseen the biggest drop in living standards since the second world war (all whilst taking us for mugs by feeding us lies and showing contempt) yet people can be sucked into the believe that if we vote for a Tory they'll do what I'd like on this one issue and that is enough for me to turn a blind eye to everything else. I find it pathetic especially on something like ULEZ where as @blandy has explained so well it is the government who have made it compulsory by law to reduce air pollution and there are only so many ways to do that and clearly reducing vehicle pollution is going to have to be one of those ways. 

Correct mark but you think it will stop there? Gradually they will change the year of the car so it effects more people so soon you will probably have to change your car every 3-4 years and the cars are costing so much now. Thats the big worry for me as i cant see them leaving it at the current age of the car.

4 hours ago, blandy said:

There's a lot in that Dem

The first thing is cars are more enviro friendly now. It's old cars where the problem lies with ULEZ - the old polluting ones have to pay, the new ones don't.

And yes, it would be nice if new cars were cheaper. It would be nice if everything was cheaper. But it's never going to happen. The best we can hope for is prices stop going up as fast as they are. There's nowt Sadiq Khan can do about the price of cars.

If people ditch their old cars (in outer London), they'll obviously save money on Vehicle Exise duty and on fuel, MoT, insurance and servicing - and that adds up to a lot. But they're then left dependent on what you say is inadequate public transport - and that's definitely even more the case in Manchester, and elsewhere. So investment in better public transport has to be made - and again, that's central (Tory) Government. Or they could do more to encourage electric cars and wotnot, too. But it's not something Khan can do.

No one's restricted where they can go by a ULEZ, they just have to pay to there. WHich is unsatisfactory for them, particularly if they are struggling financially. LTNs seem to be popular with residents where they are, but not with people who want or have to travel through those areas to get to the shops or to work etc. People like that their kids can play in the streets, they like that pollution in their area is much lower. But local business maybe doesn't like that they get less passing custom from non-locals. If LTNs just displace traffic from one route to another, longer and slower route (which they do) then like you say they are not really working as they should. The problem is too many people in too many cars. The answer is fewer people in fewer cars, then everyone wins...but there has to be a viable alternative for people, and that's where the problem manifests itself. Too often there isn't and people just feel picked upon for something they have no alternative but to do.

The country, nationally, need proper grown up Government to bring it all together. Not gonna happen under the tories. Whetehr Labour will be much better is also open to question.

Alot of good points there pete. Your last paragraph is the crucial one. Guess time will tell.

Cars could be more affordable but i suspect profits come first like most things 

With LTNS it benefits the selected few but i bet when they get off their own road and stuck in a hour of traffic after they are not happy.

Also the biggest issue i have with LTNs are safety. They have bollards in the ones by me and we had a epsiode where emergency services couldnt get through to someone on the road and there was a big ho ha about it. Ill see if i can find it online but yeah was very very bad

[Davkaus]

I do wonder what the end game is with ulez, as it's more been identified as a major income stream for some regions.

There's the same problem nationally with petrol/diesel taxes that are almost certainly going to see us using to pay a mileage tax to top up the coffers when more and more cars are electric. How are metropolitan councils making up the shortfall?

I suspect we will be seeing the goalposts moved once the income drops from older cars.

[Demitri_C]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I do wonder what the end game is with ulez, as it's more been identified as a major income stream for some regions.

There's the same problem nationally with petrol/diesel taxes that are almost certainly going to see us using to pay a mileage tax to top up the coffers when more and more cars are electric. How are metropolitan councils making up the shortfall?

I suspect we will be seeing the goalposts moved once the income drops from older cars.

I mean for me. If the daily rate was like a pound i dont think people would have made such a big fuss for **** £12.50 a day is **** ridiculous thats £87.50 a week.

Thats £350 a week if you travelled every day and your car isnt compliant. That alone i think makes it a money maker and its not really to do with environment in my view.

Whats the ULEZ money going towards anyone know? If it was for the environment they should put that back in the coffers to help those on lower incomes to get a car thats compliant