[Tubby Isaacs]

But Shapps didn't make extending it all the way to the Greater London Boundary a condition. That's the point. And Khan in 2018 was wanting to extend it anyway.

It's a good policy, but it's also a political liability. I dunno, does delaying it a year or whatever mean that fewer vehicles are affected? Could that be a way forward?

[safe_timber_man]

I think, all things considered, this is simply grandstanding and spin on both sides and, actually, this whole issue is relatively irrelevant when it comes down to a general election. Yes, taking Uxbridge would have been a great boast for Labour and an embarrassment for the Tories but really it's just a Tory safe seat being turned into a battleground further down the line. My biggest take from all this, from a Labour perspective, is that they've thrown one of their own under the bus in order to get ahead in the spin game, which is disappointing and a rare 'L' from Keir.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Even if Labour had won by 500, it would still have been a big underperformance to where Labour were in Selby, and doesn't seem to be any doubt that it was ULEZ. And as I've said, I wouldn't be surprised if this gave a head of steam to wider "war on the motorist" stuff nationwide. Corbyn was careful to side step that and didn't propose to increase fuel duty.

I think review is right.

[Youngian]

Susan Hall must be geared up to fight the mayoralty campaign on a pro-pollution ticket. Getting a bad smell about the Uxbridge vote and suspect a white pro ULEZ mayor wouldn’t have lost Uxbridge for Labour. Uxbridge was a still a massive swing for Labour so fuck ‘em.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This on the other hand isn't right. I appreciate the nervousness over raising taxes, but I think that this is a very popular programme that can be sold on the basis of paying for itself, or thereabouts.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Susan Hall must be geared up to fight the mayoralty campaign on a pro-pollution ticket. Getting a bad smell about the Uxbridge vote and suspect a white pro ULEZ mayor wouldn’t have lost Uxbridge for Labour. Uxbridge was a still a massive swing for Labour so fuck ‘em.

She's fighting on a "sticking it to Khan" ticket. I'm sure she'll choose a load of non-ULEZ stuff that will bite her on the arse.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

How does it pay for itself?

My understanding of the programme (and I was peripherally involved in setting it up) was that it was very expensive.

[Tubby Isaacs]

How does it pay for itself?

My understanding of the programme (and I was peripherally involved in setting it up) was that it was very expensive.

If not pays for itself, then brings long term benefits. The first studies into it were not particularly complimentary but more recently, it's looked much better.

In 2017 the evidence concerning the effectiveness of Sure Start from both the NESS and the ECCE studies was summarised by a briefing paper that was written for members of Parliament. The value-for-money analysis concluded that most services provided a net financial loss to Government, but that the overall benefits (to both individuals and the Government) were seen to provide overall value for money: "This report has shown that policies which have impacts within reasonable bounds of magnitudes on early child and family outcomes can potentially generate substantial monetary returns over and above the costs of delivering the services."[27]

In June 2019, a study conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that Sure Start reduced the numbers of people taken to hospital and saved millions of pounds for the National Health Service. The study found that where Sure Start offered high levels of service in poor neighbourhoods in England, visits to hospital to treat injuries fell among all children of primary school age, and by a third of all 11-year-olds.[9] Access to the programme cut the probability of admission to hospital in the poorest 30% of areas by 19% at the age of 11, while in the richest 30% of areas there was almost no impact. Across all areas, the programme's effect was equivalent to annually averting 5,500 hospitalisations of 11-year-olds.[38]

Two years later, in June 2021, the cuts in early years support were also linked to children obesity, "the cuts correspond to 4575 more children with obesity or 9174 more overweight/obese children between 2010/11 and 2017/18 than would have been expected had funding levels for the centres remained the same, estimate the researchers. With deprived areas hardest hit by these cuts, the effect is likely to have widened the 'obesity gap' between the richest and the poorest children, they say."[39]

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see that a lot of Sure Start centres still exist. So it wouldn't be a standing start, like before. I'd be surprised if Labour couldn't offer something on expansion in its manifesto. Maybe it will, but doesn't want to be bound by it now.

[mattomac]

This on the other hand isn't right. I appreciate the nervousness over raising taxes, but I think that this is a very popular programme that can be sold on the basis of paying for itself, or thereabouts.

I believe he has already stated he still believes in the green initiative, it’s fundamentally about jobs, growth and energy dependency that’s how it needs to be pushed.

I’d be wary of any Labour insider or source frankly, they’ve all got agendas on all sides of the party.

Khan knows his voters and they aren’t in Uxbridge, Susan Hall’s pro motorist approach won’t work in most of London, the assumption every outer London area is like Uxbridge is another flaw in reacting too much to one election in which you gained 7% swing. Race was also another issue for Labour.

If we had underperformed in Selby and won Uxbridge easily then I’d have more concerns. Abernathy is right though, it should have been focused on early, I’m not even sure Beales approach midway through to counter the Mayor helped in anyway.

Fundamentally you lost the seat because there was some lapse approach to looking at the seat, considering they won Selby you have to wonder how good the analysis from the party was in that, it comes across as rather poor, especially as it’s politics, it doesn’t matter if it’s totally true or not, the message the Tories pushed considering how many will be effected by it was a lie.

Taunton will go like Selby but I’m not sure a war on the motorist will work particularly well, one thing my dad always mentions is pump prices.

Labour could make a decent message on that. Selby 247th on a list, the candidate was evidently someone they chose who they felt could with a decent go at it and potentially take it when the boundaries are more favourable next year.

On reflection Labour should be pleased with Thursday, they will take Taunton based on that.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's not about the 7% swing. The reason they aren't happy is that there was something like a 10% underperformance, even if you assume the constituency is a lot less swingy than Selby. I'm reminded a bit of Blair in 2000 having to scrap the fuel duty accelerator. That was another "surely nobody can argue with the benefits?" policy, but it became a massive issue and he responded. Sure, ULEZ isn't as universal as that, but I think it has similar potential to take off. It may be worthwhile Labour making some "we've listened" gesture. It's not really a question of Khan's electorate in all this. And it's why meaningful devolution isn't the straightforward political win some people think.

I thought they were being very overconfident about Selby, but they were right and I was wrong. But I think they feel that the lead is fragile, and are sensitive to the potential for tax rises to be a fruitful dividing line for the Tories.

[Abernathy]

But I think they feel that the lead is fragile, and are sensitive to the potential for tax rises to be a fruitful dividing line for the Tories.

It’s the old “bloke carrying a priceless porcelain vase along the highly-polished floor of a long corridor” thang again, innit ?

[Andy McDandy]

People want to save the environment. They just don't want to get off their arses to do so.

To sell an environmental policy, it has to either be easy and a bit fun (e.g. aerosols and CFCs), or giving a bit back (e.g. car scrapping). ULEZ strikes me as neither.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The issue is the cost. At £12.50 a day it is not feasible for those on low incomes - like #1 son. He would be paying £87 a week, just to go to work and pick up his kids. Neither of those things can be done on public transport (which is crap round here), and bikes are impractical in their circumstances - it would take him a couple of hours to cycle to work. Let alone getting a drum kit to gigs.

So he needs to find the cash for a new car (having bought a diesel for economy) - at least £10k, which he hasn't got. And in the present economic climate his earnings are unlikely to improve.

If he was a sole trader with a van, necessary to his work, he would be in an even worse place.

So it isn't a case of not being on board with the green intentions, the change is simply too abrupt and too expensive for many people, who therefore have great issues with it.

The Tories have spotted this, and now it seems that Starmer has too.

[Boiler]

Looking at the ULEZ issue and that compliant petrol cars can be as much as twenty years old, there must be a way for those caught by this to find a replacement car cheaply. I've noticed the more astute traders on AutoTrader now mark cars as "ULEZ compliant" in their adverts. A car does not need to be 'new' to get around this, for example this low-mileage Ford Focus locally:

ULEZcompliant Focus.jpg (260.02 KiB) Viewed 4349 times

Euro 4, so okay for London (I checked on the Tfl website). Fifteen years old, but that's nothing for a car these days.

Somehow, there needs to be a flow of vehicles between areas with and without ULEZ (for now). Or maybe a 'car exchange' scheme, rather than the scrappage schemes.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

My 2007 Volvo is compliant, at the moment.
However, the rumour is that the rules will change in 2025.

[safe_timber_man]

Looking at the ULEZ issue and that compliant petrol cars can be as much as twenty years old, there must be a way for those caught by this to find a replacement car cheaply. I've noticed the more astute traders on AutoTrader now mark cars as "ULEZ compliant" in their adverts. A car does not need to be 'new' to get around this, for example this low-mileage Ford Focus locally:


ULEZcompliant Focus.jpg

Euro 4, so okay for London (I checked on the Tfl website). Fifteen years old, but that's nothing for a car these days.

Somehow, there needs to be a flow of vehicles between areas with and without ULEZ (for now). Or maybe a 'car exchange' scheme, rather than the scrappage schemes.

70k miles on a petrol engine is low mileage, in your opinion??

[davidjay]

Looking at the ULEZ issue and that compliant petrol cars can be as much as twenty years old, there must be a way for those caught by this to find a replacement car cheaply. I've noticed the more astute traders on AutoTrader now mark cars as "ULEZ compliant" in their adverts. A car does not need to be 'new' to get around this, for example this low-mileage Ford Focus locally:


ULEZcompliant Focus.jpg

Euro 4, so okay for London (I checked on the Tfl website). Fifteen years old, but that's nothing for a car these days.

Somehow, there needs to be a flow of vehicles between areas with and without ULEZ (for now). Or maybe a 'car exchange' scheme, rather than the scrappage schemes.

70k miles on a petrol engine is low mileage, in your opinion??

For a car that's fifteen years old, I'd say it is.

[safe_timber_man]

Things just start to go wrong at around the 70k mark in petrol cars. Not always, obviously, but the 70k bracket is the most populated on Autotrader because the car starts to become worth less than the inevitable repairs and people want to get rid of them before that happens. Point being, if Londoners desperate to avoid the charges go out and buy higher mileage yet "ULEZ Compliant" (that's ripe for misselling!) car because they think it's going to save them money they could end up getting stung even harder in the long run.

[Youngian]

I can believe that. You have to be a dim bulb to buy into Johnson’s patter for more than six months.