Khan wins ULEZ court case
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/jul...
Mayor of London said:
This landmark decision is good news as it means we can proceed with cleaning up the air in outer London on 29 August.
The decision to expand the Ulez was very difficult and not something I took lightly and I continue to do everything possible to address any concerns Londoners may have.
The Ulez has already reduced toxic nitrogen dioxide air pollution by nearly half in central London and a fifth in inner London.
The coming expansion will see five million more Londoners being able to breathe cleaner air.
I’ve been listening to Londoners throughout the Ulez rollout, which is why from next week I am expanding the scrappage scheme to nearly a million families who receive child benefit and all small businesses with up to 50 employees. I will continue to look at new ideas to support Londoners
Interesting bit about the scrappage scheme being extended to small businesses.The decision to expand the Ulez was very difficult and not something I took lightly and I continue to do everything possible to address any concerns Londoners may have.
The Ulez has already reduced toxic nitrogen dioxide air pollution by nearly half in central London and a fifth in inner London.
The coming expansion will see five million more Londoners being able to breathe cleaner air.
I’ve been listening to Londoners throughout the Ulez rollout, which is why from next week I am expanding the scrappage scheme to nearly a million families who receive child benefit and all small businesses with up to 50 employees. I will continue to look at new ideas to support Londoners
The Conservative party London mayoral candidate Susan Hall said:
While it is a shame the high court did not find the Ulez expansion to be unlawful, there is no denying that Sadiq Khan’s plans will have a devastating impact on families and businesses across the city.
If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
I suspect this will resonate with a lot of people come the elections in 2024.If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
Drumroll said:
s1962a said:
I suspect this will resonate with a lot of people come the elections in 2024.
Maybe, but it won't actually have any impact on the ULEZ.Tom8 said:
This is grim. Some people who work for me live outside zone but have families who live in it so now you have to pay to visit family. Yet another tax on a myth, it is like church tax in Germany.
Hopefully any traders or business operators now in the ULEZ will immediately start passing the extra 12.50 a day charge onto customers bills, as soon as the businesses become obliged to start paying it. (A great idea with so many already struggling with the cost of living)That way, everyone in London will know exactly where the extra costs to them, has come from. Hopefully this will be reflected in the results of next mayoral election.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 28th July 10:53
jameswills said:
Highlights the state of our court system and how bent it is to enable this to get through.
Expand on that? We have a Conservative government in power who are against ULEZ, a tory mayoral candidate who is also against ULEZ, and tory councils that brought on the challange. How do you suppose the court system was influenced, and by whom to get this through?s1962a said:
The Conservative party London mayoral candidate Susan Hall said:
While it is a shame the high court did not find the Ulez expansion to be unlawful, there is no denying that Sadiq Khan’s plans will have a devastating impact on families and businesses across the city.
If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
I suspect this will resonate with a lot of people come the elections in 2024.If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
Not unless the incoming labour government put their hand in their pocket and find tfl adequately.
Having pledges /commitments/ aspirations is easy in opposition.
s1962a said:
The Conservative party London mayoral candidate Susan Hall said:
While it is a shame the high court did not find the Ulez expansion to be unlawful, there is no denying that Sadiq Khan’s plans will have a devastating impact on families and businesses across the city.
If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
I suspect this will resonate with a lot of people come the elections in 2024.If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
jameswills said:
Highlights the state of our court system and how bent it is to enable this to get through.
I'm glad we've got a legal expert joining the discussion.In what way was it bent? The Tory government introduced legislation to tackle air quality. The judges just seem to have agreed that the mayor has a duty to follow the law.
That sort of opinion about courts being bent definitely needs more to support it, if it is not going to be filed immediately into the "conspiracy" category
s1962a said:
Expand on that? We have a Conservative government in power who are against ULEZ, a tory mayoral candidate who is also against ULEZ, and tory councils that brought on the challange. How do you suppose the court system was influenced, and by whom to get this through?
They are all aligned, Boris was the one who invented ULEZ, it’s a nice comforting thought this government vs opposition thing, but it’s a charade.s1962a said:
Expand on that? We have a Conservative government in power who are against ULEZ, a tory mayoral candidate who is also against ULEZ, and tory councils that brought on the challange. How do you suppose the court system was influenced, and by whom to get this through?
There's a copy of a letter regarding TfL funding sent by the DfT (to TfL) which includes a commitment to expanding the ULEZ. If the Government was anti-ULEZ, why would that commitment be included?Does anyone have an accurate statistic on how many vehicles this actually impacts? I've seen a figure quoted of it only being 10% but I don't know if that is correct or not.
s1962a said:
The Conservative party London mayoral candidate Susan Hall said:
While it is a shame the high court did not find the Ulez expansion to be unlawful, there is no denying that Sadiq Khan’s plans will have a devastating impact on families and businesses across the city.
If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
I suspect this will resonate with a lot of people come the elections in 2024.If I am elected Mayor, I will stop the Ulez expansion on day one and set up a £50m pollution hotspots fund to tackle the issue where it is, instead of taxing people where it isn’t.
Ian Geary said:
I'm glad we've got a legal expert joining the discussion.
In what way was it bent? The Tory government introduced legislation to tackle air quality. The judges just seem to have agreed that the mayor has a duty to follow the law.
That sort of opinion about courts being bent definitely needs more to support it, if it is not going to be filed immediately into the "conspiracy" category
That’s fine, you can keep believing in the system if you wish and makes you sleep easier. For me, it’s a total sham, the lot of it, and this just doesn’t make me think any different. Yes I know I’m probably in a minority and will no doubt be called a conspiracy theorist (again), I’d rather be that side of the fence than yours now though. In what way was it bent? The Tory government introduced legislation to tackle air quality. The judges just seem to have agreed that the mayor has a duty to follow the law.
That sort of opinion about courts being bent definitely needs more to support it, if it is not going to be filed immediately into the "conspiracy" category
Tom8 said:
This is grim. Some people who work for me live outside zone but have families who live in it so now you have to pay to visit family. Yet another tax on a myth, it is like church tax in Germany.
Yep, a colleague who lives inside the expansion zone, but who has family out in the sticks, will need to change his car, or pay to leave his house. He's a long-term red voter who remembers and has pure hatred for Thatcher, but his pet name for Khan starts with a C... Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff