What kind of father sacrifices his children in order, he thinks, to win an election

Dinahmo

It seems to me that most of the problems in the UK are down to govt policies. The govt forced ULEZ upon Labour run city councils. So, all of you who are against ULEZ could be engaged in attempting to counter govt policies, even if you only sign the many surveys and campaigns.

Sorry where did this come from? As far as I know the only objections to ULEZ are coming from Conservative councils www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66087725

Absolutely over-the-top, irrational comment! Talk about melodramatic - "won't someone think of the children'

. . . those who can't afford to pay a hefty premium to cover the built-in depreciation to the car industry.

Or in English - 'those who can't afford to pay the car industry a hefty premium to cover built-in depreciation.

The point is that the vehicles which don't have to pay the charge are LESS polluting. The idea is to keep the worst polluters ( mostly petrol cars more than 18years old and diesel vehicles more than 7 years old) out of the zones, or using them as little as possible.
Yes, I think everyone is aware of that. But another relevant point (there can be more than one ) is that not everyone changes their car every couple of years, and doing so is not environmentally friendly. The people who are probably least likely to get a new car before the old one is 'past it' are those who can't afford to pay a hefty premium to cover the built-in depreciation to the car industry. This means that the better-off can still travel where they like, but the less well-off are restricted, and IMO that is very wrong. If we all need to be less polluting, the schemes brought in to achieve that should affect everyone equally.

LTNs do not reduce traffic, merely move it somewhere else and usually into a more crowded environment where traffic comes to frequent stops, engines still running. They only work for the people who are actually using the LTN and pushing the problem somewhere else.

Get a grip, the UK produces 1% of the worlds carbon, even at net zero, it will have virtually no impact on climate change, perhaps you can pay for everyone’s £12.50 a day or heat pump etc, in Scotland you don’t pay a fee to go into Glasgow, if your car doesn’t meet emissions you just get a £60 fine, oh you public transport idiots say, fine if you live in a city but rural transport links are absolute crap and very expensive.
I dislike Sunak but he is actually right on this, sacrificing his children is a really, nasty thing to say, and ridiculous

10:14Whitewavemark2

Nicenanny3

I don't know the ins and outs, it's under review now. I live in Cheshire just over the border my children and grandchildren live in Trafford I wouldn't have been able to visit them without paying the ULEZ charge. Big campaign here at the time on Facebook lots of stories how it would affect people in different ways, white van man trying to earn a living, people just inside the zones who couldn't access the motorway without paying etc. People who had cameras outside their homes having to pay money they couldn't afford just to drive out of their street. The cameras, thousands of them are still up but the signage has been covered up saying under review.

Do they all own very old cars or diesels then?

They certainly don't where I live.

Do you live in your own little bubble, I've just been on the M6 most vehicles if you take the time to look do not comply with ULEZ standards that's vehicles before 2017 (that's only 6 years old). I have upgraded my vehicle because I could afford to but many people cannot afford to do so and actually I live in a Wilmslow a very upmarket place but it's not about me I feel sympathy for the man/woman on street who are struggling to make ends meet and can't afford to upgrade their vehicle.

Argument by analogy is often flawed. A hand is in the fire or it isn't but the extent of pollution is not either/or. The UK's contribution is small when compared with China or the USA. Why doesn't Thunberg protest n the USA or China?

It seems to me that most of the problems in the UK are down to govt policies. The govt forced ULEZ upon Labour run city councils. So, all of you who are against ULEZ could be engaged in attempting to counter govt policies, even if you only sign the many surveys and campaigns.

SecondhandRose

Been to China? The US? Seen what they pump out? We are the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel we sadly need them. Electric cars are expensive, heat pumps and solar panels are expensive. There are some very ugly wind farms out to sea.

Golly it is unbelievable that this sort of argument is used by adults. Just reminds me of what mothers have always said when their children pointed out what others were doing "And if he put his hand in the fire would you?"
They are building one of the biggest wind farms ever on Tyneside, it's going to be situated on the Dogger Bank- not somewhere most of us will see it.

SecondhandRose

Been to China? The US? Seen what they pump out? We are the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel we sadly need them. Electric cars are expensive, heat pumps and solar panels are expensive. There are some very ugly wind farms out to sea.

A thousand wrongs don’t make a right though, do they? We are a rich country, we should be leading the way on cutting emissions and by doing so set an example and help shame other nations into taking action too.
What I haven’t seen is any figures showing exactly how many vehicles there are in each zone, so we have a better idea of the size of the problem, and what can be done to help people become compliant. My gut feeling is that it is work vans which are the biggest issue, because most of them are diesel. A compensatory benefit would help small businesses to replace their vehicles. I don’t think ULEZ should be scrapped altogether, that would be very shortsighted when it is a big step in the right direction if it can be made to work for everybody.

I would never describe monica as a keyboard warrior 😄😄😄

Shelmiss

“just cannot get my head around the idea of a father prepared to sacrifice his children for a petty political gain“

good grief, going a bit over the top aren’t you?

M0nica the keyboard warrior always likes to scare monger to get a reaction

SecondhandRose

Been to China? The US? Seen what they pump out? We are the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel we sadly need them. Electric cars are expensive, heat pumps and solar panels are expensive. There are some very ugly wind farms out to sea.

We need billionaires who would be philanthropic enough to fund solar panels and/or heat pumps for all houses, or research into viable fuel alternatives, instead of going on macho vanity jollies.Their names would be remembered in the future for their good deeds.

09:40Doodledog

The ins and outs are very important though, nicenanny, particularly when, as you say yourself, the result of a Tory policy is to make a Labour mayor ‘a hate figure’.

Burnham just like Khan had the remit to make inner Manchester ULEZ but not expand it to other areas. Yes ins and outs matter but so do people trying to make a living

Elegran

Germanshepherdsmum

How do you know 80% will be exported? And how are any exports ‘all about money for the government’? Cynical or what?

I must be a bit dim, or ignorant, but surely exporting ANYTHING makes money for those exporting it - ie, the owners or producers of it - not for the Government, except indirectly by the taxes they put on the producers' money? Have we nationalised all oil and gas production while I wasn't looking?

Surely the point is that the govt are granting new licences, some for gas. The govt imply that it will help our energy supplies and make them secure for the future.

Most of the gas is sent to Europe for storage as the UK has very little and then sold on the world market.

Centrica own the larges storage facility off the coast in Yorkshire which they closed in 2017. Apparently its capacity was 70% of the UK capacity. It reopened in October 2022.
The govt imply that it will help our energy supplies and make them secure for the future.

Though since then we've had the scandal of diesel car manufacturers falsifying their emissions data to make them appear less polluting...

The trouble is they were encouraging people to buy diesel cars at one time.

That was a long time ago, MayBee. In the 1990s IIRC. I doubt if many of them are still in use.

OTOH No doubt the contrary message has passed many people by; once an idea takes hold it's difficult to shift it from the public consciousness.

Been to China? The US? Seen what they pump out? We are the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel we sadly need them. Electric cars are expensive, heat pumps and solar panels are expensive. There are some very ugly wind farms out to sea.

The trouble is they were encouraging people to buy diesel cars at one time. And I read an article a few years ago saying how damaging it was to the environment if you scrapped a car and bought a new one. I always thought the best thing to do was to keep a car running for as long as possible. Daft suggestion but why aren’t councils encouraging people to plant more trees in built up areas? Every little thing helps.

Rosie51

Rosie51

If the only aim was to protect poorer children from the pollution then surely non compliant vehicles would simply be banned from entering these zones? As it is, if you can afford the daily charge then you are free to go on polluting. Or is 'paid for' pollution somehow less polluting?

I'll quote myself because I'd like to know why being able to pay the charge makes polluting acceptable.

The point is that the vehicles which don't have to pay the charge are LESS polluting. The idea is to keep the worst polluters ( mostly petrol cars more than 18years old and diesel vehicles more than 7 years old) out of the zones, or using them as little as possible.

Rosie51

Rosie51

If the only aim was to protect poorer children from the pollution then surely non compliant vehicles would simply be banned from entering these zones? As it is, if you can afford the daily charge then you are free to go on polluting. Or is 'paid for' pollution somehow less polluting?

I'll quote myself because I'd like to know why being able to pay the charge makes polluting acceptable.

It doesn't. Anything that restricts movement is, IMO, very suspect, and if it restricts the movement of one group in particular it is reprehensible.

Passing this off as 'moaning' is either a flagrant disrespect for the fact that not everyone can afford to change their car or pay ULEZ taxes, or a disregard for the rights of others.

Rosie51

Rosie51

If the only aim was to protect poorer children from the pollution then surely non compliant vehicles would simply be banned from entering these zones? As it is, if you can afford the daily charge then you are free to go on polluting. Or is 'paid for' pollution somehow less polluting?

I'll quote myself because I'd like to know why being able to pay the charge makes polluting acceptable.

It doesn’t, and it would be more acceptable if it was made absolutely clear that the revenue raised was being used to develop excellent public transport and other mitigation.

Rosie51

If the only aim was to protect poorer children from the pollution then surely non compliant vehicles would simply be banned from entering these zones? As it is, if you can afford the daily charge then you are free to go on polluting. Or is 'paid for' pollution somehow less polluting?

I'll quote myself because I'd like to know why being able to pay the charge makes polluting acceptable.

Callistemon21

That is not how it came across at all.

What are your suggestions?

My suggestions? Well moan about the lack of good transport, moan about the lack of government action to mitigate the pollution, moan about the fact that children are dying, and ensure that they vote for someone who offers sensible solutions. Feed this into your politician. Go on marches , unpopular I know. Protest. But don’t just moan about the fact that you have to pay a tax that is trying to mitigate against death of children.

Be pro-active