By Elections on 20th July..

MaizieD

Whitewavemark2

Any car younger than 2005 will not have to pay the tax. I read that somewhere. 2015 was also mentioned but I forget in what context.

2005 is pretty old for a car.

I posted that yesterday. It was from the Observer.

It's the age of exempt diesel cars which seems to be unclear. Some posters are saying that it's post 2015 registrations for diesel cars.

That makes sense, because changes were made so the emissions were reduced in the engines of diesel cars then. That’s why those of us (like me) with diesel cars need AdBlue these days, it is injected into the catalytic converter to break down soot and unburnt fuel into water and nitrogen, which reduces pollution considerably.

So I think honestly that the ULEZ is not so bad as people feared, and the issue is a Tory led “wedge”

How often do you need to do that, Casdon?. My OH has an elderly diesel car and although we don't live anywhere near any ULEZ it would seem like a good thing to do.

Whitewavemark2

So I think honestly that the ULEZ is not so bad as people feared, and the issue is a Tory led “wedge”

That's exactly what I think, too, Wwmk2.

MaizieD

How often do you need to do that, Casdon?. My OH has an elderly diesel car and although we don't live anywhere near any ULEZ it would seem like a good thing to do.

It’s about every 8,000 miles on my car, it’s easy to do, there’s an inlet next to the fuel inlet and you just pour it in. I buy it in Aldi when they have a deal so I’ve always got some handy. I don’t think you can use it unless you have a car with the separate inlet, but I might be wrong.

Thanks, Casdon.

But according to this article only newer diesels are fitted with the AdBlu technology. Our diesel is about 10 years old 🙁

www.whatcar.com/news/what-is-adblue-and-does-your-diesel-car-need-it/n16545

MaizieD

Whitewavemark2

So I think honestly that the ULEZ is not so bad as people feared, and the issue is a Tory led “wedge”

That's exactly what I think, too, Wwmk2.

Me too. I do think the Labour Party needs to look at their communications. A short weekly podcast - with facts - would help.

Newspapers are never going to report without adding their biased tripe and a vast number of those they need to reach now never read a physical newspaper.

Whitewavemark2 , do you live in the ULEZ zone with an old car? If not, I don't think you can possibly be aware of the impact on people who need their cars and will be unable to afford to use them. My son has moved to a part of London which falls within the zone and we have had to juggle cars so we can move him in without incurring charges. He has just left Uni, is waiting for his first job start so has no money for £12.50 per day if he has to move his car because of parking restrictions, etc. He has parked his car at our house and we will sell it for him. He couldn't even afford to take it to London to sell it! Although he isn't registered disabled because he can walk, he has a genetic condition where he gets injured sometimes just by moving and then he is unable to use public transport or walk to get to hospital appointments. He will fall through the net for being exempt.

I agree that Labour should look at its communications. They should have been able to explain just how few people would have been affected by the charge and explained any policies they would bring in to make it easier to update the vehicles that would have been affected.
Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ the Government told Sadiq Khan that he had to increase it to get funding for Transport for Greater London, so trying to blame him and suggesting that he "reconsider was quite wrong.

Ilovecheese

I agree that Labour should look at its communications. They should have been able to explain just how few people would have been affected by the charge and explained any policies they would bring in to make it easier to update the vehicles that would have been affected.
Boris Johnson introduced ULEZ the Government told Sadiq Khan that he had to increase it to get funding for Transport for Greater London, so trying to blame him and suggesting that he "reconsider was quite wrong.

Starmer told Khan to ‘reflect’, not ‘’reconsider’ which is a different thing altogether. I think in the circumstances that was appropriate, because the message about ULEZ is so critical, and it should be adapted if it can’t work in the timescale. It’s all about hearing the concerns and adapting.

icanhandthemback

*Whitewavemark2 *, do you live in the ULEZ zone with an old car? If not, I don't think you can possibly be aware of the impact on people who need their cars and will be unable to afford to use them. My son has moved to a part of London which falls within the zone and we have had to juggle cars so we can move him in without incurring charges. He has just left Uni, is waiting for his first job start so has no money for £12.50 per day if he has to move his car because of parking restrictions, etc. He has parked his car at our house and we will sell it for him. He couldn't even afford to take it to London to sell it! Although he isn't registered disabled because he can walk, he has a genetic condition where he gets injured sometimes just by moving and then he is unable to use public transport or walk to get to hospital appointments. He will fall through the net for being exempt.

No I don’t live in the ULEZ area, and yes I do understand how it will affect the poorer members.
Although as I thought was clear from my post, it does not appear to affect so many folk as I first thought, or indeed as the Tories would have you believe ( misleading - it is their policy).

However, what I strongly think needs to happen is an excellent connected public transport system.

I do think that we have to address all these issues that are affecting our climate.

The problem is, we all want to protect the environment, but not if it adversely affects us personally. I’m as guilty of that as anybody. (eg I’ve just had to deep clean a house and I didn’t even attempt to use vinegar, bicarbonate of soda, or not use wipes!). And, listening to Sunak today the government are going to promise all things to all people, especially their core voters. I’ve been tempted to vote for them (it would have helped my son financially) in the past because of promises that they never actually implemented. The next election isn’t a done deal and not everyone feels like I do which is that I’ll vote for anyone to get this government out. And Labours worst enemy is quite often its own left wing members. It isn’t Keir’s fault that he doesn’t have the snake oil salesman way of speaking that politicians like Johnson and Farage have.

So how many folks does it need to affect before it is considered to be a "bad" tax? Surely the main thing here is that it is an unfair tax on the poorer members of society.

Yes, I agree on the need for am excellent connected public transport system. Outside of London in more rural areas it is dire and expensive whilst almost impossible to navigate as a disabled person.

"Starmer told Khan to ‘reflect’,"
So let us reflect.
We have a policy that improves air quality and saves lives.
A lack of clarity about how many people would be affected has cost about 500 votes in one seat.
Do we:
a) forget it and leave the air quality as it is, while also losing money to improve the public transport system.
Or
b) find ways to explain how we, if in Government, would help people to change their cars and vans to comply with the new regulations.

Ilovecheese

"Starmer told Khan to ‘reflect’,"
So let us reflect.
We have a policy that improves air quality and saves lives.
A lack of clarity about how many people would be affected has cost about 500 votes in one seat.
Do we:
a) forget it and leave the air quality as it is, while also losing money to improve the public transport system.
Or
b) find ways to explain how we, if in Government, would help people to change their cars and vans to comply with the new regulations.

Or c) work cooperatively with the mayor of London now, to devise a strategy which will work UK wide rather than just for London, which he can communicate to the people affected in London to help alleviate their concerns, and which will become the Labour Party strategy going forward.

I’m just watching the news which is telling me that the government is considering backtracking on its climate change policies.

We are never going to deal with it are we?

Whitewavemark2

I’m just watching the news which is telling me that the government is considering backtracking on its climate change policies.

We are never going to deal with it are we?

It will cost them a lot of votes if they backtrack. There are a lot more voters who support environmental measures being essential than they think.

Whitewavemark2

So I think honestly that the ULEZ is not so bad as people feared, and the issue is a Tory led “wedge”

So it would seem, and a Tory led 'wedge' against a Tory instigated and enforced policy too. I just wish that Starmer had been more forceful about this, had worked against the campaign of lies misinformation.

icanhandthemback

*Whitewavemark2 *, do you live in the ULEZ zone with an old car? If not, I don't think you can possibly be aware of the impact on people who need their cars and will be unable to afford to use them. My son has moved to a part of London which falls within the zone and we have had to juggle cars so we can move him in without incurring charges. He has just left Uni, is waiting for his first job start so has no money for £12.50 per day if he has to move his car because of parking restrictions, etc. He has parked his car at our house and we will sell it for him. He couldn't even afford to take it to London to sell it! Although he isn't registered disabled because he can walk, he has a genetic condition where he gets injured sometimes just by moving and then he is unable to use public transport or walk to get to hospital appointments. He will fall through the net for being exempt.

I can appreciate that individuals have problems with the ULEZ zones, but just how many people within the zones run 18 year old+ petrol cars?

As it was the tory government, not the Labour Mayor of London, that insisted the zones be extended to London suburbs they should have provided a decent scrappage scheme to help those who would be adversely affected by it.

All that some of us are trying to point out is that the anti ULEZ campaign run by the tory candidate in Uxbridge over exaggerated its adverse effects; scaremongering to win votes.

DH has a 16 yr old diesel 4 X 4 I think he would rather change me than change his beloved car.

When we go into London or from August inside the M25 we have to go in mine.

GrannyGravy13

DH has a 16 yr old diesel 4 X 4 I think he would rather change me than change his beloved car.

When we go into London or from August inside the M25 we have to go in mine.

I've just told my DH that if we go anywhere with emissions charges we'll have to use my car.

He keeps on talking about changing his car, but he never gets round to doing it...

Don't take the car into London. Why not use public transport?

varian

Don't take the car into London. Why not use public transport?

Public Transport is not always the answer especially late at night with youngsters.

GrannyGravy13

varian

Don't take the car into London. Why not use public transport?

Public Transport is not always the answer especially late at night with youngsters.

That situation should be the exception. Tell the youngsters that if you have to drive into the ULEZ zone to pick them up late at night, they should pay the ULEZ charge

MaizieD, it will be 8 year old diesels so probably quite a few. As Diesels were built to last they go on forever.