Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Extension of ULEZ to South Circular
Comments
-
It's either allowed or it isn't, unless you can say what's "more allowable"..
Check if you have accepted photo ID
You’ll need one of the following types of photo ID to vote:
- a UK or Northern Ireland photocard driving licence (full or provisional)
- a driving licence issued by an EU country, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands
- a UK passport
- a passport issued by an EU country, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or a Commonwealth country
- a PASS card (National Proof of Age Standards Scheme)
- a Blue Badge
- a biometric residence permit (BRP)
- a Defence Identity Card (MOD form 90)
- a national identity card issued by the EU, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein
- a Northern Ireland Electoral Identity Card
- a Voter Authority Certificate
- an Anonymous Elector’s Document
You can also use one of the following travel passes as photo ID when you vote:
- an older person’s bus pass
- a disabled person’s bus pass
- an Oyster 60+ card
- a Freedom Pass
- a Scottish National Entitlement Card (NEC)
- a 60 and Over Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
- a Disabled Person’s Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
- a Northern Ireland concessionary travel pass
The photo on your ID must look like you. You can still use your ID even if it has expired.
0 -
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/voter-id/#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20more%20disadvantaged,any%20form%20of%20photo%20ID.
The link above is to the respected and long established Electoral Reform society. An organisation used by all parties and groups for elections for all sorts of things. The organisation was formed in 1884, 140 years ago. And for those who think the ERS is any part of the Labour Party, well Labour was formed in 1900, sixteen years later and five years before the founding of Charlton Athletic.
The link indicates those most likely to fall foul of the Tory introduced restrictions on democratic involvement, that didn’t exist previously.1 -
"In September 2020, the Electoral Reform Society joined with other pressure groups (including Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform) and Labour MPs to launch Labour for a New Democracy, a campaign to "build support for UK electoral reform in Labour with the aim of changing party policy by the time its next conference takes place".[23] According to polling, three-quarters of Labour members believe the party should commit to supporting proportional representation and adopt it as a policy.[24] The motion for the 2021 Labour Party conference[25][26] was defeated despite 80% of CLP delegates voting in favour due to an overwhelming vote against by the affiliated trade unions, most of which at the time did not have policy on electoral reform.[27]"seth plum said:https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/voter-id/#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20more%20disadvantaged,any%20form%20of%20photo%20ID.
The link above is to the respected and long established Electoral Reform society. An organisation used by all parties and groups for elections for all sorts of things. The organisation was formed in 1884, 140 years ago. And for those who think the ERS is any part of the Labour Party, well Labour was formed in 1900, sixteen years later and five years before the founding of Charlton Athletic.
The link indicates those most likely to fall foul of the Tory introduced restrictions on democratic involvement, that didn’t exist previously.
0 -
Why do you have an issue with ID @seth plum
The list of approved ID is published and its pretty basic and normal (passport, driving licence, etc, etc) so what's the issue?1 -
The issue is explained in the link above.cafc999 said:Why do you have an issue with ID @seth plum
The list of approved ID is published and it’s pretty basic and normal (passport, driving licence, etc, etc) so what's the issue?
One example is an 18 year old person without a driving licence and passport.
Driving licences and passports are not all that basic.
Nor are things all that basic for those off grid.0 -
Not got a lot to do with the ULEZ has it...4
-
SporadicAddick said:https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/making-the-case-for-electoral-reform-at-conservative-conference/
"In September 2020, the Electoral Reform Society joined with other pressure groups (including Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform) and Labour MPs to launch Labour for a New Democracy, a campaign to "build support for UK electoral reform in Labour with the aim of changing party policy by the time its next conference takes place".[23] According to polling, three-quarters of Labour members believe the party should commit to supporting proportional representation and adopt it as a policy.[24] The motion for the 2021 Labour Party conference[25][26] was defeated despite 80% of CLP delegates voting in favour due to an overwhelming vote against by the affiliated trade unions, most of which at the time did not have policy on electoral reform.[seth plum said:https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/voter-id/#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20more%20disadvantaged,any%20form%20of%20photo%20ID.
The link above is to the respected and long established Electoral Reform society. An organisation used by all parties and groups for elections for all sorts of things. The organisation was formed in 1884, 140 years ago. And for those who think the ERS is any part of the Labour Party, well Labour was formed in 1900, sixteen years later and five years before the founding of Charlton Athletic.
The link indicates those most likely to fall foul of the Tory introduced restrictions on democratic involvement, that didn’t exist previously.
Sorry my quotation is messed up, but the above link is an example of the ERS with the Tories. They are a pressure group for a form of proportional representation, and also a go to organisation for the oversight of non governmental elections.0 -
Complete waste of time and MONEY, as there was a minuscule amount of voter fraud in the first place.SporadicAddick said:It's either allowed or it isn't, unless you can say what's "more allowable"..
Check if you have accepted photo ID
You’ll need one of the following types of photo ID to vote:
- a UK or Northern Ireland photocard driving licence (full or provisional)
- a driving licence issued by an EU country, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands
- a UK passport
- a passport issued by an EU country, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or a Commonwealth country
- a PASS card (National Proof of Age Standards Scheme)
- a Blue Badge
- a biometric residence permit (BRP)
- a Defence Identity Card (MOD form 90)
- a national identity card issued by the EU, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein
- a Northern Ireland Electoral Identity Card
- a Voter Authority Certificate
- an Anonymous Elector’s Document
You can also use one of the following travel passes as photo ID when you vote:
- an older person’s bus pass
- a disabled person’s bus pass
- an Oyster 60+ card
- a Freedom Pass
- a Scottish National Entitlement Card (NEC)
- a 60 and Over Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
- a Disabled Person’s Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
- a Northern Ireland concessionary travel pass
The photo on your ID must look like you. You can still use your ID even if it has expired.
The right always think that people with no passport and no driving license are more likely to vote Labour. Sadly it’s as simple as that. They wouldn’t have implemented it if they didn’t think it would help them.12 -
I think the left probably have more passports, just not their own
Joke, stay calm & this had nothing to do with Ulez.4 - Sponsored links:
-
See i think this is where your misunderstanding of the scheme is coming from. Collecting fees does not mean the scheme isn't working. The aim isn't to remove all polluting vehiclesRob7Lee said:
All of that is your opinion, there's certainly no facts yet to say the new ULEZ zone has done much at all, except cost a hell of a lot of money. Based on the amount of fees collected plus the fines issued it seems to me that it's not yet having much of an effect.JamesSeed said:
It is just about air quality. If they ever move to a pay per mile system it won’t be done using cameras, it’ll be done using trackers in the cars & gps.Rob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.JamesSeed said:
You’re making it sound almost corrupt, as if people are enriching themselves through ULEZ. They’re not.Rob7Lee said:
1) Not sure I badge that as continuous improvement, if they start charging fully electric cars to enter the zone that's not an improvement, it will just show that it's about raising money.cantersaddick said:
1) I have no doubt that over time as production cars become more efficient then the rules for being compliant will shift to incorporate some cars. This is continuous improvement and I support this even as someone who expects that this will push my 15 year old petrol car into non-compliance.Rob7Lee said:
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.
2) So you don't think where a car is polluting matters? If its polluting on a road with fields either side and few other cars where the emissions can disperse then there clearly isnt a localised air quality issue there. Whereas polluting in London with millions of cars, buildings lots of concrete and lack of green space to disperse or absorb the emissions clearly that is going to have a bigger impact on air quality.
Again pollution/emissions are not the same as localised air quality. ULEZ isn't about climate change per se but about the quality of air we breathe in London. The issues and solutions you are proposing are focusing on emissions/climate change. They are good solutions to that problem and I have no doubt similar will come into place in time to support things like the regulations banning sale of new petrol cars post 2030. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try and solve the air quality issues in cities and town centres.
2) Not sure that really applies, plenty of green spaces in the ULEZ and you've picked one extreme (few other cars, lot of fields) but there are huge areas not like that, not in a ULEZ zone, I named two - why?
As already mentioned places like Paris have banned cars by age in the name of clean air (just weekdays mind I think), why can't we? Anything to do with money by chance? If we ban there's no money being collected (or substantially less)Yes, banning old cars would be effective, but it would also be very unpopular at a time when the mayor already receives death threats, and when people are taking angle grinders to the traffic cameras. Personal I prefer the carrot and stick approach to the stick and stick approach.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national .......
although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......I see it as a local issue because London is a massive city with an air problem. I don’t expect people living in Margate or Whitley Bay to have to pay to improve the air that I breathe.Can’t see why people won’t just accept that this really isn’t an issue any more. ULEZ is working pretty well, and most Londoners support it. If they don’t then there’s an election in May.The arguments about adopting national systems or banning polluting cars altogether are moot anyway, because they ain’t gonna happen.I’d let it go chaps, because it’s done and dusted.
Genuinely, hats off to Boris Johnson for implementing it, possibly the only positive legacy achievement of his career.
An awful lot of things are done and dusted (remember leaving the Valley?), doesn't stop people having an opinion on them though or believing there are better alternative ways. At 4:45pm on a Saturday the game ends, but we all still have an opinion after right?
I don't personally expect anything to change as generally once these things are in they aren't going anywhere, but I still think it's been very poorly thought out and implemented and there were and are better alternatives.
LEts use the example of pollution permits in factories/manufacturing, an industry where the same concept has been applied in many countries for decades with huge success. A government wants to reduce the pollution coming from manufacturing so brings in regulation that a company must own permits for each ton of pollution it creates (oversimplification but basically how it works). The government creates the level of permits equal to the level of pollution it deems acceptable. Companies can purchase these. The companies with factories that can easily adapt to new technologies or pollution reduction techniques do so and as a result have to buy less permits. Those with older factories where it would be more expensive and inefficient (at least in the short term) to adapt and reduce pollution so they buy more permits paying towards the cost of the pollution they create. There is still a level of pollution, some factories produce less than before and some remain unchanged, but overall there is a reduction in pollution to an acceptable levels. A bonus is the government can reduce the permits on offer over time to drive innovation/adaptation of new technologies, eventually the older factories are replaced and upgraded to require less permits and pollute less.
ULEZ works on this exact principle. Each individual makes a decision based on their own individual circumstances, if you have to drive into the zone a couple times a year you will pay the fee rather than upgrade your vehicle as that is the most efficient option for you, if you can change your habits to cut down then the same goes for you. If you need to regularly drive into the zone then upgrading your vehicle is probably the best option for you. All of these as a collective result in reduced pollution to the level targeted. That some cars still enter the zone and therefore pay a fee does not mean its not working. In fact its designed to still allow that.0 -
I have elaborated at far greater length previously: ignoring the real reason why TfL needs to collect this money right now is plain daftRob7Lee said:
Not saying it's anything corrupt at all, but anyone who thinks this is purely about air quality needs to give their heads a wobble. Whilst of course there is that element to it, it's also very much about building a system to collect money.JamesSeed said:
You’re making it sound almost corrupt, as if people are enriching themselves through ULEZ. They’re not.Rob7Lee said:
1) Not sure I badge that as continuous improvement, if they start charging fully electric cars to enter the zone that's not an improvement, it will just show that it's about raising money.cantersaddick said:
1) I have no doubt that over time as production cars become more efficient then the rules for being compliant will shift to incorporate some cars. This is continuous improvement and I support this even as someone who expects that this will push my 15 year old petrol car into non-compliance.Rob7Lee said:
I’m not anti ULEZ as such, just the way it’s been implemented, the cost and the lack of real support for some.JamesSeed said:After all this time I still don't get why some are still anti ULEZ. Genuinely. I have kids, so I always think of things that will benefit them in the future.
i still believe there is a larger reason for all of this, there’s no way once there’s minimal to no cars paying the charge happens (as people keep telling me will) the cameras won’t be used to collect revenue another way.
as for localised problems, if a car is too polluting it’s too polluting, shouldn’t simply be in busier areas or the worst effected areas. A very simple national target would have worked quite easily through VED.
the lines are drawn where they are due to the mayors responsibility, nothing to do with the worst polluting areas.
2) So you don't think where a car is polluting matters? If its polluting on a road with fields either side and few other cars where the emissions can disperse then there clearly isnt a localised air quality issue there. Whereas polluting in London with millions of cars, buildings lots of concrete and lack of green space to disperse or absorb the emissions clearly that is going to have a bigger impact on air quality.
Again pollution/emissions are not the same as localised air quality. ULEZ isn't about climate change per se but about the quality of air we breathe in London. The issues and solutions you are proposing are focusing on emissions/climate change. They are good solutions to that problem and I have no doubt similar will come into place in time to support things like the regulations banning sale of new petrol cars post 2030. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try and solve the air quality issues in cities and town centres.
2) Not sure that really applies, plenty of green spaces in the ULEZ and you've picked one extreme (few other cars, lot of fields) but there are huge areas not like that, not in a ULEZ zone, I named two - why?
As already mentioned places like Paris have banned cars by age in the name of clean air (just weekdays mind I think), why can't we? Anything to do with money by chance? If we ban there's no money being collected (or substantially less)Yes, banning old cars would be effective, but it would also be very unpopular at a time when the mayor already receives death threats, and when people are taking angle grinders to the traffic cameras. Personal I prefer the carrot and stick approach to the stick and stick approach.
Just think how we could have stopped all the death threats, cameras being cut down and huge unnecessary expenditure if we'd just taxed polluting cars via the well trodden VED system as we have done for the past 20 years? Oh yer, but apparently it's a local issue not national ....... although funny how we've nationally banded cars for VED based on their Co2 emissions for donkeys years, we've even managed to do it by year of manufacture also. Funny that.......
we'll argue for years about "emissions" "pollution" "air quality" "road pricing", none of us will be happy about the inevitably higher cost of the future "cleaner" ways to travel/heat homes/blah blah.
ULEZ is about localised air quality and how fatally dangerous it still is for chunks of society
Even at the start when it was mostly commercial and goods vehicles that were "targeted" the mayor imposed it without giving LAS funds to replace all its non-compliant ambulances FFS it's always been a tawdry political football
BUT THE REASON EXPANDED ULEZ IS HERE NOW AT THESE PRICES IS BECAUSE OF SHALLOW CYNICAL CHILDISH POLITICAL SHITHOUSERY BY A NOW EX MAYOR EX PM
your only realistic alternative was for TfL to shut down London's public transport
We're already one of the most CCTV supervised nations so getting twitchy about the cameras being there to collect revenue is pretty special selective paranoia
Bus lane cameras, yellow box cameras, speed cameras, traffic light cameras - they're all the same. The only thing that reliably impacts behaviour is to hit pockets
1 -
1 example not having a driving licence lol (I bet they carry ID when in a pub though - don't tell me, they don't drink either)seth plum said:
The issue is explained in the link above.cafc999 said:Why do you have an issue with ID @seth plum
The list of approved ID is published and it’s pretty basic and normal (passport, driving licence, etc, etc) so what's the issue?
One example is an 18 year old person without a driving licence and passport.
Driving licences and passports are not all that basic.
Nor are things all that basic for those off grid.
Mate, you have a good few years to get relevant ID so let's not be daft.1 -
Covered End said:I think the left probably have more passports, just not their own
Joke, stay calm & this had nothing to do with Ulez. Bottom of the channel0 -
Bottom of the channel0
-
Eh?
Is there some kind of reference to people drowning in the English Channel mixed up with a reference to passports?
Can anybody explain?0 -
Oh. They would need to get other ID in order to vote.Davynix said:
Yes Bus boy,illegals dumping their papersseth plum said:Eh?
Is there some kind of reference to people drowning in the English Channel mixed up with a reference to passports?
Can anybody explain?
Buses can help people get to the polling station.0 -
One opponent to Sadiq Khan for those interested.
https://www.countbinface.com/2024-manifestoWhat’s not to like?1 -
I also pledge that I know the difference between being pickpocketed and dropping your wallet!
2 - Sponsored links:
-
Interesting development in that Manchester is not seemingly now adopting a London style ULEZ after a review according to the headline:
https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-news/legal/manchester-scraps-clean-air-zone/?utm_source=OracleResponsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PCP-E-B-250124-NEWSL-ENG-NEW
0 -
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.4 -
they probably couldn’t get an appointment!cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.7 -
Good joke. However, the research methodology takes this into account. If I've read the paper correctly there were more appointments available in the year after than the comparator year.stop_shouting said:
they probably couldn’t get an appointment!cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.
So that's not the reason.4 -
cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.
can London not identify a comparable benefit?cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.0 -
These studies take time and money. No idea if a London one has been commissioned or not but it will likely take longer than this from implementation to publish results. Either way within a reasonable margin for error it's pretty save to say the benefits are replicated elsewhere.valleynick66 said:cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.
can London not identify a comparable benefit?cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.
It does match pretty much exactly what the research pre expansion to the South circular said would happen.1 -
Hmmm. Not sure we can assume the gains will be as much.cantersaddick said:
These studies take time and money. No idea if a London one has been commissioned or not but it will likely take longer than this from implementation to publish results. Either way within a reasonable margin for error it's pretty save to say the benefits are replicated elsewhere.valleynick66 said:cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.
can London not identify a comparable benefit?cantersaddick said:https://www.nihr.ac.uk/story/bradford-breathes-easier-pollution-levels-fall#:~:text=Their latest results, which are,around £30,000 each month.
Massive piece of research into Bradfords clean air zone shows in the year since it was implemented a 25% reduction in people presenting at GP with respiratory and heart complaints. With the biggest changes seen in the poorest demographics. Saving the NHS £30k a month on those initial appointments alone. Would be way more if factoring follow up treatments etc.
It does match pretty much exactly what the research pre expansion to the South circular said would happen.I still await evidence that the benefits for the expansion are as tangible AND not a financial cost to London. Time will tell.5
