Jump to content

ULEZ expansion ruled lawful by High Court


megalaki84

Recommended Posts

 

Pleased with the Court decision that ULEZ extension is legal. Irrespective of any issues the case raised Mayor Khan can now implement the next stage of Mayor Johnson's brainchild.

Nobody appears to mention the compromise for those in low income who can change their old diesel for an even older petrol car.  That would not make good news.  The compromise was proposed under Johnson's time.  I'll see if I can get a link.

And stuff you Tory counties, Tory boroughs, and for balance the leader of the opposition and wishy washy MPs including mine.  I'll be writing Tomy MP again.

Anyway hooray!

Oh and that pathetic Transport Secretary 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the BBC...

 

The judge also takes a pop at the consultation process, but ultimately sides with Sadiq Khan again: "While the consultation conducted was not in-depth, it was lawful."

Article share tools

 

 

Councils will probably take heed as this is a bit of a shot across the bow from the judge. 

Edited by Rockets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was in the judges' summing up...its a shot across the bow.

 

But do you not think Labour HQs headache now actually gets worse on the back of this judgement? A result against them might have been the best result for them.

Edited by Rockets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadiq may be heading into more troubled waters as Labour HQ aren't at all happy that ULEZ is costing them votes at a time when they need to be showing that they are not a divided party and this sort of thing is behind them. It will be interesting to see if party politics come into play now, this regional issue has far reaching national implications.

 

As I said before ULEZ is a huge political football and the stakes could not be higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, megalaki84 said:

Victory for ULEZ and a wonderful day for London that clearly shows the Mayor's determination on vehicle control. Hopefully this carries through to CPZs 

It is often not what is in front you that causes the problems but what comes further down the road.....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rockets said:

It is often not what is in front you that causes the problems but what comes further down the road.....

Exactly why I support it. ULEZ provides a base that can easily be expanded to include all polluting vehicles in future

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the comments coming out of Labour HQ about ULEZ in light of the Uxbridge by-election only a political fool would suggest they are not concerned about the perceptual impact this could have on their election campaign....a clear bump in the road they don't need (no matter how far ahead they are). Labour HQ knows they have to overturn a big majority and cannot afford any distractions. Uxbridge was a massive wake-up call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

It was in the judges' summing up...its a shot across the bow.

 

But do you not think Labour HQs headache now actually gets worse on the back of this judgement? A result against them might have been the best result for them.

I mean, lol. 

"Delivering a summary of his 18-page ruling, Mr Justice Swift said all three grounds of claim brought by the councils had failed.

“I’m satisfied the Mayor’s decision to expand the Ulez area by amending the present road charging scheme rather than submitting an entirely new scheme was within his powers,” he said.

“Having carefully considered the decision published for the purposes of consultation, I’m satisfied sufficient information was provided to permit those wanting to respond to the consultation to provide informed responses.

“I’m further satisfied that when taking the decision on the grant to meet the cost of the vehicle scrappage scheme, the Mayor understood the likely provision that would be made.

“While the consultation conducted was not in-depth, it was lawful.”

the actual quote in context.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rockets said:

Legal speak for....bring this poorly thought-out homework back to me again and you may not get a pass grade next time....

 

I'm not sure what you're seeing that I'm not but that is about as solid a judgement by the judge as you're ever likely to see

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Sadiq may be heading into more troubled waters as Labour HQ aren't at all happy that ULEZ is costing them votes

That's because Starmer is basically a conservative camping out in the Labour party. His only concrete positions seem to be a half step shuffle to the left of whatever the Tories are currently doing. And here he's at it again, repeating a Tory talking point uncritically as if it's a fact.

1. Uxbridge has voted conservative for over 50 years (it's not that old, but this holds if you consider it's two parent constituencies). Don't forget that the residents of Uxbridge decided they wanted to have Boris Johnson as an MP even when the quality of his character was very well known.

2. The difference between Tory and Labour was a lot smaller than the Green party share of the vote, and the greens are pro ULEZ to the point where they are trying to implement their own in Brighton.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be a bit annoyed if i lived in one of the 4 tory boroughs that just wasted £1m of local constituents council tax on a bit of culture war electioneering against a Conservative policy. 

Edited by snowy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pick up in Hackney, drop off in ED.   any recommendations?
    • I agree, there are too many intangibles at play to be able to say what has, or hasn't created, the increase in crime in the whole ward. I do think there is a debate to be had whether quieter streets with fewer cars mean that certain types of crime are easier to commit and allow targeting of victims. The current modus operandi of crash for cash only really works on quieter streets and it is no coincidence that areas around the DV LTN are being targeted by criminals.  On phone snatches and knifepoint robberies the argument could be made that because there are more people walking around the quieter streets then that part explains the rise in crimes of that nature (which aren't happening on Dulwich Square but on the surrounding streets. Overall, in the Dulwich Village ward, crime is on the way up, is the highest it has been in the three years of monitoring available on the police website, and it is being driven by certain types of crime - I don't really care what the cause is but what the solution is because it is Dulwich residents (all of our neighbours) who are often on the receiving end of what can be terrifying encounters that can have lasting impact.
    • I think it covers the postcode and a 0.25 mile radius surrounding it (it's a little unclear). The LTN has been in for four years and there is no evidence of a rise in crime (possibly the data is more suggestive of a fall). As far as detailed research into the impact of LTNs on crime more generally (not Dulwich specific), that concludes they tend to reduce crime. In conclusion, we can't say anything definitively, but the available evidence does not support the claim of "increasing crime from Southwark’s LTN". If anything it suggests the opposite.
    • Only the reported data and nothing yet for this year. Glad you are clear that an apparent reduction does not necessarily show the true picture- and, of course, we also have a number of people who live in the area saying that crime has gone up. In conclusion, we don't yet know.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...