Jump to content

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

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

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

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.

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
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

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.

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
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
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.

 

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

    • The SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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