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

[Demitri_C]

23 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, I asked you a question you didn’t answer. You just asked me a random question about aircraft.

We’re discussing ULEZ, you want to discuss big polluters like cargo ships of Chinese tat heading for Amazon warehouses that’s a separate subject.

How does £12.50 a day reduce pollution? By exactly the reason you don’t like it, by making it expensive to drive a more polluting older vehicle.

It absolutely does not mean you have to buy a £50,000 electric SUV.

 

 

I did answer you question its so painful debating with you sometimes as you get so defensive when challenged.

'Random question about aircraft' ? I asked you why you don't have a issue with aircrafts who are bigger polluting vehicles? If you want clean air does that stop you flying anywhere? Or as you mention cargo ships which are bigger polluting vehicles? 

The 12.50 doesnt stop people. If you cant afford to buy a new vehicle you still drive the car, pay mr khan the cretin the money and make it even more difficult to afford a new car as you have no mone as your paying the dailyfee. Its just a con to get more money out of people.

As i said above while dont they phase diesel cars out? They have had a very long time to do this. 

Also have you seen how much the **** fine is if you dont pay the ulez fee? And your telling its for cleaner air. Give me a break

 

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

It doesnt work though. If you need a car and cant afford it your stuck paying the fee. Whats the £12.50 going towards? Khan hasnt actually told us. I

What I find incredibly amusing is that you've been angry about this for months, if not years, but you don't seem to have gone to the effort of googling "where does ULEZ money go".

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

It doesnt work though. If you need a car and cant afford it your stuck paying the fee.

If you’re paying £12.50 a day, because you can’t afford £180 a month for a brand new Hyundai, you might not be very good at maths.

15 days at £12.50 would be costing you £187.50 

I didn’t go hunting for the cheapest car on earth I went Hyundai / Lease and got that as the very first price that came up.

I’m currently driving an ULEZ compliant 5 door automatic lease car that’s costing me £175 a month. My £175 car costs £320 to insure and does close to 60mpg.

Now I would humbly suggest that many people driving a 20 year old car might be paying more overall, for fuel, insurance, mot, repairs than I am.

 

 

 

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I did answer you question its so painful debating with you sometimes as you get so defensive when challenged.

'Random question about aircraft' ? I asked you why you don't have a issue with aircrafts who are bigger polluting vehicles? If you want clean air does that stop you flying anywhere? Or as you mention cargo ships which are bigger polluting vehicles? 

The 12.50 doesnt stop people. If you cant afford to buy a new vehicle you still drive the car, pay mr khan the cretin the money and make it even more difficult to afford a new car as you have no mone as your paying the dailyfee. Its just a con to get more money out of people.

As i said above while dont they phase diesel cars out? They have had a very long time to do this. 

Also have you seen how much the **** fine is if you dont pay the ulez fee? And your telling its for cleaner air. Give me a break

 

Where have I said I don’t have an issue with aircraft? Quote where I’ve said that. Perhaps I get defensive when people make stuff up and claim I said it.

It’s not a ‘challenge’ to make things up or change the subject, it’s diversion or whataboutism. 

[chrisp65]

There is a valid argument that there will be people hanging on by the skin of their teeth. People with a job that barely keeps their head above water, or causes them to sink more slowly. That must absolutely be the case. People that genuinely can’t afford it. That won’t be paying the £12.50 as they don’t have it. I get that. That makes sense and that is desperately sad and there should be some sort of support for those people. 

But that can’t be a brake on progress to cleaner air and better cities.

We can’t tell the families of the dead that whilst we could have improved things it would have made things tougher for some other people, so we didn’t. Your husband / wife / daughter, was the brave soldier that fell to allow people to drive dirty old vans.

If we move at the pace of the absolute slowest, we will still be burning coal, we will have lead pipe plumbing, we will still have asbestos coated boilers. Keeping those things would have saved a small number of society’s poorest people some money at some point. But we’re all better off without them, aren’t we?

 

[ml1dch]

38 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

It doesnt work though. If you need a car and cant afford it your stuck paying the fee. Whats the £12.50 going towards? Khan hasnt actually told us. If he really cared about the clean air he would use that money to help those on lower incomes to get new vehicles.

Isn't that exactly what is happening? The scrappage scheme that pays people to get rid of older vehicles and acquire newer ones?

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Yup, not too dissimilar to that at all. 

Thought you’d be happy with a Tory running London? 

[choffer]

18 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Isn't that exactly what is happening? The scrappage scheme that pays people to get rid of older vehicles and acquire newer ones?

In theory. But if you’re living at the poorer end of the scale  and have an old banger to get you around, you scrap it and get your two grand. Then you’ve got two grand burning a hole in your pocket but you have to find a replacement car for that amount that is compliant. Oh, and if you’re on benefits, that two grand will be viewed as income and your benefits will be impacted accordingly. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for ULEZ even though I live in the newly expanded zone but like most things these days, it’s those who can least afford it that are getting squeezed again. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by choffer
Tiepoh

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Thought you’d be happy with a Tory running London? 

Why would you think that?

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, choffer said:

In theory. But if you’re living ant the poorer end of the scale  and have an old banger to get you around, you scrap it and get your two grand. Then you’ve got two grand burning a hole in your pocket but you have to find a replacement car for that amount that is compliant. Oh, and if you’re on benefits, that two grand will be viewed as income and your benefits will be impacted accordingly. 

Sure, all that stuff needs to be made better. No argument here. 

But the principle of "(Khan should) use that money to help those on lower incomes to get new vehicles" is, in theory, exactly as it is supposed to work.

[Demitri_C]

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Isn't that exactly what is happening? The scrappage scheme that pays people to get rid of older vehicles and acquire newer ones?

The problem is the cost of new cars the scrappage doesnt touch the surface. This could work if

Cars were cheaper and not ridiculously expensive at the moment 

The ulez fee wasnt so high and a daily charge

Cost of living crisis where people are already struggling

Hits the poorest harder than the wealthy. The  wealthy all either lease or have new cars so it doesnt impact them at all.

I am abit suprised as (this isnt aimed solely at you @ml1dch) but considering this site is a majority left labour supporters why there is support for it as i dont think the main aim is not cleaner aim i think its just a extra tax ?

This is a tax that you expect from the tories. 

 

 

 

[Jareth]

8 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Why would you think that?

Assumed you leaned to the right - my bad! 

[choffer]

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

This is a tax that you expect from the tories. 

Odd that. Given the whole thing is a Tory initiative. 

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The problem is the cost of new cars the scrappage doesnt touch the surface. This could work if

Cars were cheaper and not ridiculously expensive at the moment 

The ulez fee wasnt so high and a daily charge

Cost of living crisis where people are already struggling

Hits the poorest harder than the wealthy. The  wealthy all either lease or have new cars so it doesnt impact them at all.

I am abit suprised as (this isnt aimed solely at you @ml1dch) but considering this site is a majority left labour supporters why there is support for it as i dont think the main aim is not cleaner aim i think its just a extra tax ?

This is a tax that you expect from the tories. 

 

 

 

I can't keep up. You're complaining it doesn't affect people who don't drive those cars, which would make it a general tax rather than a targeted fee, but you're unhappy that it's a tax, despite arguing that it isn't?

There's no point it being much cheaper so it doesn't give people a second thought, is there, because then everyone will just pay it. Which is what you wouldn't want, because that wouldn't make people change their behaviour, it'd just be a money generator...

[ml1dch]

6 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Assumed you leaned to the right - my bad! 

Pretty sure I've never made a single post that would give that impression, but fair enough.

[chrisp65]

Just now, ml1dch said:

Pretty sure I've never made a single post that would give that impression, but fair enough.

He’s clearly seen you drowning kittens and spitting in the food bank soup.

[Seat68]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

I dont know why you find it "odd" when you ask me a question you dont like the answer and now its deemed "odd" taking it off subject

You failed to mention the bigger polluters like planes. You also havent explained to me how the £12.50 a day charge stops the pollution?

In London and the surrounds Planes are not the biggest polluters effecting people. 

[Davkaus]

25 minutes ago, choffer said:

 Oh, and if you’re on benefits, that two grand will be viewed as income and your benefits will be impacted accordingly. 

Now this does sound like a pain, but I think the practical impact is quite small. There are two bad scenarios, it either takes you over 16k in savings (in which case, maybe you don't need to wait for the 2k to do something about the car), or it takes you between 6-16k savings, which with the worst case scenario would count as just over £40 a month for benefits purposes.

Not ideal though, any downside at all is a bit shit. I guess the problem is there's no way of forcing people to use the money towards a car so it's just treated as savings money.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

If diesel was such a issue why are they still  supplying ut at the pumps?

Diesel cars (older ones) don't have the technology in them which cuts out the hazardous to health particulates (soot, basically). Newer ones do. So older diesel cars are very polluting and harmful to health, newer ones much less so. If you do as you suggest (or ask) and simply ban diesel fuel at some point then loads of people are going to be left with cars they are unable to use, and a bill to replace them. You have identified that a bill to replace people's cars is a bad thing, haven't you?

Petrol cars are more of an issue with Nitrogen Oxide, which is also harmful to health, but a different pollutant from diesel particulates. Again, older cars are much much worse than newer ones. There is a legal obligation for towns and cities to remove air pollution. The question then is how do you do that - Smokeless zones for chimneys is one thing. Reducing the usage of old polluting cars is another. It's about reducing the use of cars without the modern tech that manufacturers were forced to implement in their cars to stop them emitting hazardous to health gases and particles.

So if we're all agreed that poisoning people and giving them Asthma and lung problems and stunting the growth of kids is bad, and removing the cars and woodfires and coal fires that create the pollution is good, the only question is how do you actually make that happen, right? How do you get people to use their polluting cars less?

Obviously, they need an alternative. That alternative is either going to be using public transport, or using cleaner cars, or walking or cycling, or car sharing journeys. There's not really anything else in terms of an alternative, is there?

Not using our cars saves money on fuel and wear and tear and tyres and breakdowns and Vehicle excise duty (car tax) and insurance, but then there's the flip side of the expense of using the bus or the tube or buying a new car, right?

The Government has given money to other cities to cover grants for people to replace their old cars. They haven't done that for London. But Khan has nevertheless provided money to help people replace cars, which is the right thing to do, isn't it? The ULEZ thing was brought in originally by Johnson after the Government was taken to court (and lost) over air pollution harming people. It was then tweaked and expanded by Khan, again under Tory government instruction (and the law) for central London. The Tory Transport Secretary then wrote to Khan and said he needed to expand it to outer London.

So, while I agree with you that he's not my favourite politician, he's basically got nothing else he can do. Legally he has to ensure lower pollution levels, the government instructed him to do it, and told him to expand it. The government's provided no money for him to help people with. How is any of this his fault? The government has also forced him to raised TfL fares.

I get the concern that some people are going to be inconvenienced by the charge and can't afford it. Why are people so skint? Is that Khan's fault? Did he crash the economy or was that Liz Truss. Did he implement austerity or was that George Osborne. Did he put up people's taxes, or was that Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt?

[Genie]

32 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The problem is the cost of new cars the scrappage doesnt touch the surface. This could work if

Cars were cheaper and not ridiculously expensive at the moment 

The ulez fee wasnt so high and a daily charge

Cost of living crisis where people are already struggling

Hits the poorest harder than the wealthy. The  wealthy all either lease or have new cars so it doesnt impact them at all.

I am abit suprised as (this isnt aimed solely at you @ml1dch) but considering this site is a majority left labour supporters why there is support for it as i dont think the main aim is not cleaner aim i think its just a extra tax ?

This is a tax that you expect from the tories. 

 

 

 

You wouldn’t need to go from a £2k car to a £30k one to avoid paying ULEZ charges. Something £3-£5k would do it I’m certain.

Also, I see very little support for Labour. Disliking the Tories is not the same as supporting Labour.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Genie