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

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block.
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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