ULEZ Letter

metalblue said:
Why are you deflecting?

You said “Who introduced the ULEZ zone and then made a wider rollout a condition of the TFL funding agreement?”

It turns out nobody made it a condition of the TfL funding agreement did they?
Click to expand...

They did. They just didn't impose it on all of outer London. I made an honest mistake, oh well.

That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.

It is a good idea. It will improve people's health and save lives. Which is more important aspect of life than car ownership.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
They did. They just didn't impose it on all of outer London. I made an honest mistake, oh well.

That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.

It is a good idea. It will improve people's health and save lives. Which is more important aspect of life than car ownership.
Click to expand...
Even more important than taking the S3 down the road to Maccie D's ? Get out of here.

It's electric blue with banging Alloys and everyfink.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
They did. They just didn't impose it on all of outer London. I made an honest mistake, oh well.

That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.

It is a good idea. It will improve people's health and save lives. Which is more important aspect of life than car ownership.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but clearly the whole thing about it being the Tories making khan do it is nonsense.
 
Vic said:
They didn't oppose it though.

Schapps' letter of August 30, 2022 says if Khan wants to do it, there's no government funding for it so the Mayor has to fund the whole cost.
Click to expand...

Ok so the letter doing the rounds pointing to it being all the governments idea/forcing Khan to do it was utter horseshit but because you can’t bring yourself to accept that this is the Labour’s mayors policy and somehow think the tories must be behind it - because it suits your cultist agenda (and yes you follow Labour around like a cult as you’d vote for a pig if it had a red rosette as proven by your door knocking for Corybn and your door knocking for Starmer - chalk and cheese springs to mind). Anyhow I digress - you’ve decided to move the goal posts and cite he (Snapps’) didn’t formally oppose it in a formal settlement letter - quite a stretch when it’s clear Khan as mayor of London has the powers to implement it.

But well done for trying.
 
metalblue said:
Ok so the letter doing the rounds pointing to it being all the governments idea/forcing Khan to do it was utter horseshit but because you can’t bring yourself to accept that this is the Labour’s mayors policy and somehow think the tories must be behind it - because it suits your cultist agenda (and yes you follow Labour around like a cult as you’d vote for a pig if it had a red rosette as proven by your door knocking for Corybn and your door knocking for Starmer - chalk and cheese springs to mind). Anyhow I digress - you’ve decided to move the goal posts and cite he (Snapps’) didn’t formally oppose it in a formal settlement letter - quite a stretch when it’s clear Khan as mayor of London has the powers to implement it.

But well done for trying.
Click to expand...

PMSL.
 
metalblue said:
Ah but it’s ok to call tories cultist / cunts / gammons etc?

They don’t like it up ‘em sir…
Click to expand...

So you concede that the Tories chose not to oppose the rollout of ULEZ in order to make it into an electoral football at a later stage?

Yes it is. Are you okay with voting for the party of 30p Lee or will you be abstaining?
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
So you concede that the Tories chose not to oppose the rollout of ULEZ in order to make it into an electoral football at a later stage?

Yes it is. Are you okay with voting for the party of 30p Lee or will you be abstaining?
Click to expand...

They (the government) could not oppose it, it’s within the power of the mayor - some Tory councils took Khan to court on a technicality, lost, and the judge told them as much. It would be a case of a waste of taxpayers money and we’ve had a few of them.

Regarding a clever plot I doubt they are that forward thinking. Of course they’re making political capital out of it following the recent election result as it was an issue for the voter but they have very little else to attack Labour on as they are both broadly agreeing with each other.

Outside the impacted it’s unlikely to register on a list of wider GE voter concerns - nor do I see the issue of a mayor exercising their lawful powers a matter for the national government - if they don’t like it remove those powers, don’t complain about how they use them. The local voters can deal with it at the mayoral ballot box as is their democratic right. At best the tories might win one or two seats as a consequence but it’s not going to make a scrap of difference to the outcome.
 
metalblue said:
They (the government) could not oppose it, it’s within the power of the mayor - some Tory councils took Khan to court on a technicality, lost, and the judge told them as much. It would be a case of a waste of taxpayers money and we’ve had a few of them.

Regarding a clever plot I doubt they are that forward thinking. Of course they’re making political capital out of it following the recent election result as it was an issue for the voter but they have very little else to attack Labour on as they are both broadly agreeing with each other.

Outside the impacted it’s unlikely to register on a list of wider GE voter concerns - nor do I see the issue of a mayor exercising their lawful powers a matter for the national government - if they don’t like it remove those powers, don’t complain about how they use them. The local voters can deal with it at the mayoral ballot box as is their democratic right. At best the tories might win one or two seats as a consequence but it’s not going to make a scrap of difference to the outcome.
Click to expand...

Which they could have done last year?
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Which they could have done last year?
Click to expand...

I’m sure they could have done but it would have gone against the devolution the tories (originally as a coalition) had implemented since 2010. I’d argue that removing powers mid term is undemocratic as well, the people voted for a mayor who made specific promises based on the powers they possess as mayor - reform (that reduces those) should only routinely come in to force at time of election of course there may be specific “with good cause” where those powers should be curtailed but just because you don’t like a policy, that isn’t illegal, doesn’t come close to the good cause definition. It’s for the incumbent mayor to justify the policies that they implement to their electorate, like all politicians Khan will have worked out the risks to his political future of enlarging ULEZ.
 
metalblue said:
I’m sure they could have done but it would have gone against the devolution the tories (originally as a coalition) had implemented since 2010. I’d argue that removing powers mid term is undemocratic as well, the people voted for a mayor who made specific promises based on the powers they possess as mayor - reform (that reduces those) should only routinely come in to force at time of election of course there may be specific “with good cause” where those powers should be curtailed but just because you don’t like a policy, that isn’t illegal, doesn’t come close to the good cause definition. It’s for the incumbent mayor to justify the policies that they implement to their electorate, like all politicians Khan will have worked out the risks to his political future of enlarging ULEZ.
Click to expand...
I think what you need to appreciate is that while most of us are occasionally wrong or Ill informed, others are correct all the time. The internet and particularly BM politics sub forum is a very serious thing. Have some empathy for those with a 100% record of being right on the internet.
 
metalblue said:
I’m sure they could have done but it would have gone against the devolution the tories (originally as a coalition) had implemented since 2010. I’d argue that removing powers mid term is undemocratic as well, the people voted for a mayor who made specific promises based on the powers they possess as mayor - reform (that reduces those) should only routinely come in to force at time of election of course there may be specific “with good cause” where those powers should be curtailed but just because you don’t like a policy, that isn’t illegal, doesn’t come close to the good cause definition. It’s for the incumbent mayor to justify the policies that they implement to their electorate, like all politicians Khan will have worked out the risks to his political future of enlarging ULEZ.
Click to expand...

Is your view of this reflected in statements made by senior Tories ?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I think what you need to appreciate is that while most of us are occasionally wrong or Ill informed, others are correct all the time. The internet and particularly BM politics sub forum is a very serious thing. Have some empathy for those with a 100% record of being right on the internet.
Click to expand...

I've already said I was mistaken. But the Tories seemingly chose not to oppose it and not for principled reasons to do with democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top