By-elections 2023

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • Big defeats for Tories but party holds on to Uxbridge
    Labour and Lib Dems achieve huge swings but Ulez opposition helps Tories clinch victory in west London.
    www.bbc.co.uk

    I think Sunak should take this as a warning from the electorate that they are not happy. Will he listen?

    Interesting that the Lib Dems picked up one of the seats. Clearly, they're still knocking around, although not at the levels they once were.

  • The very low votes for the Libs in Selby and Labour in Frome show that a huge amount of tactical voting took place. That and the anti ULEZ vote retaining Uxbridge will give Sunak a lot of hope.

    He is as doomed as the Tories were in 1991 and guess what happened a year later. Doesn't mean it'll happen again, in fact it's very unlikely but not impossible and that's what Sunak will be hoping for. And there are many similarities between him and John Major.

  • The ULEZ thing is London specific and as London is rapidly becoming all foreign, it will not be too long before it's a Labour only city.

    One difference between 1991 and now, is that the conservatives have been in power for longer and perhaps the elecorate might just fancy a change now.

  • Trouble is who the hell is there to vote for its like Turkeys voting for two Christmases' a year, the ones in power now are the best of a very bad bunch to choose from

  • The ULEZ thing is London specific and as London is rapidly becoming all foreign, it will not be too long before it's a Labour only city.

    One difference between 1991 and now, is that the conservatives have been in power for longer and perhaps the elecorate might just fancy a change now.

    Don’t you believe it, Horizon. They are debating a similar scheme in my neck of the woods, and not far away in Oxford, they have an anti-car scheme there too, which many people oppose.

    Opposition to such schemes, and a successful Rwanda policy will see Rishi rising rapidly in the polls.

  • But the sad truth is those old bangers with their NOx emissions in urban areas are killing children and others. ULEZ may have been poorly sold but it actually makes sense if it gets use of those cars moved to where the NOx disperses quickly

  • But the sad truth is those old bangers with their NOx emissions in urban areas are killing children and others. ULEZ may have been poorly sold but it actually makes sense if it gets use of those cars moved to where the NOx disperses quickly

    Bullshit. A FOI request asked for the number of deaths in London with air quality or pollution recorded on the death certificate. Turns out that since the year 2000 there has been only one death in this category and that is highly contentious as there were additional factors.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Bullshit. A FOI request asked for the number of deaths in London with air quality or pollution recorded on the death certificate. Turns out that since the year 2000 there has been only one death in this category and that is highly contentious as there were additional factors.

    Because that's not how damage to lungs from long term nitric and nitrous acid in the lungs gets recorded

    Anyway you go argue with Imperial College. I figure they know a whole lot more about this than you or I

    http://erg.ic.ac.uk/Research/home/transfer/HIAinLondonKingsReport14072015final.pdf

    New estimate of the NO2 burden (long-term exposure): (Section 2.1). Whilst much less

    certain than for PM2.5., the total mortality burden of long-term exposure to NO2 is estimated
    to be up to 88,113 life-years lost, equivalent to 5,879 deaths at typical ages'

  • Because that's not how damage to lungs from long term nitric and nitrous acid in the lungs gets recorded

    Anyway you go argue with Imperial College. I figure they know a whole lot more about this than you or I

    http://erg.ic.ac.uk/Research/home/…072015final.pdf

    New estimate of the NO2 burden (long-term exposure): (Section 2.1). Whilst much less

    certain than for PM2.5., the total mortality burden of long-term exposure to NO2 is estimated
    to be up to 88,113 life-years lost, equivalent to 5,879 deaths at typical ages'

    That would be the report produced by Neil Ferguson who also produced the now fully debunked Covid death modelling on which lockdowns were based.

    I don’t think you could cite this grifter as a credible source.

    The Failure of Imperial College Modeling Is Far Worse than We Knew
    "Just over one year ago, the epidemiology modeling of Neil Ferguson and Imperial College played a preeminent role in shutting down most of the world. The…
    www.aier.org

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • That would be the report produced by Neil Ferguson who also produced the now fully debunked Covid death modelling on which lockdowns were based.

    I don’t think you could cite this grifter as a credible source.

    https://www.aier.org/article/the-fa…e-than-we-knew/

    No it would not be a report from Neil Ferguson. The clue being the authors were : Heather Walton, David Dajnak, Sean Beevers, Martin Williams, Paul Watkiss and Alistair Hunt.

    That was rather prominently stated on the front page of the linked document.

    And if you want to look for discredited organisations look no further that than Alt Right trash think tank AIER that you linked to.

  • But the sad truth is those old bangers with their NOx emissions in urban areas are killing children and others. ULEZ may have been poorly sold but it actually makes sense if it gets use of those cars moved to where the NOx disperses quickly

    The problem I have with EV is the large very heavy batteries which I believe contain lithium and how long they last and the cost to replace them and how they dispose of the waste dead batteries.

    I have test driven some EV's and Hybrids did not like them the weight of them they weigh more than conventional cars, which means they take longer to stop creating more brake dust is produced, and wear on tyres , neither of which is good to inhale, the extra weight means more wear on our overcrowded roads more potholes.

    I do not like the fact that they have limited range, and the lack of charging points when on a long run if you can find them most times you will have to que up to use them, they will not have enough by 2030.

  • Trouble is who the hell is there to vote for its like Turkeys voting for two Christmases' a year, the ones in power now are the best of a very bad bunch to choose from

    Indeed. I don't know what to do.

    Don’t you believe it, Horizon. They are debating a similar scheme in my neck of the woods, and not far away in Oxford, they have an anti-car scheme there too, which many people oppose.

    Didn't know this. Thought London was to be the only place with this affliction.

  • Just been reading an article about EV's and Hybrid cars the Fire Brigade normally send just one tender to a conventional car fire, if it is an EV or Hybrid they sent two tenders.

    Reason being they burn very fiercely, energy stored in the battery is released in a process called " Thermal Runaway" they belch out toxic fumes hydrogen cyanide the fire could produce rocket like flames tens of metres long according to Professor Ceri Sumner of Newcastle University who sits an advisory body on EV fire safety.

    Now I don't want one even more

  • Indeed. I don't know what to do.

    Didn't know this. Thought London was to be the only place with this affliction.

    Besides London , Birmingham, Bristol, Oxford, Glasgow, Bath, Bradford and Portsmouth .

    These will come about in the next year or two

    Manchester, Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Sheffield

  • The problem I have with EV is the large very heavy batteries which I believe contain lithium and how long they last and the cost to replace them and how they dispose of the waste dead batteries.

    I have test driven some EV's and Hybrids did not like them the weight of them they weigh more than conventional cars, which means they take longer to stop creating more brake dust is produced, and wear on tyres , neither of which is good to inhale, the extra weight means more wear on our overcrowded roads more potholes.

    I do not like the fact that they have limited range, and the lack of charging points when on a long run if you can find them most times you will have to que up to use them, they will not have enough by 2030.

    ULEZ isn't about electric cars or even about reducing carbon emissions. It's about the Acid forming NOx and particulate emissions of old bangers that cause lung damage that leads to a lot of deaths

  • There's not that many old bangers out on the roads anymore. Catalytic converters where introduced many years ago and we no longer use lead based fuel. The big push to get everyone to drive Diesels caused more damage. You combine this with the amount of congestion caused through introducing cycle lanes, roadworks, one way traffic schemes, no right turns, traffic lights deliberately out of sync along with other traffic calming measures, removing back street rat runs etc then all that traffic just gets more congested and stops the flow so they sit gridlocked pumping out fumes.

    Even the speed reductions in the name of 'so called' road safety is creating more emissions because fuel burns more efficiently at higher speeds. It's all about getting a clean burn with very little wastage ending up in exhaust pipes to scavenge what it can back into combustion chamber on the induction stroke. Good exhaust design also helps here with the scavenging along with exhaust wrapping to keep the exhaust hot to burn off excess waste....meaning the un-burnt fuel gets sucked back into the combustion chamber as the exhaust valve closes and the inlet valve opens. Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow.

    I believe all the above has deliberately been done to create the scenario we are in now to push the petroleum companies away from oil and towards lithium whether that be destroying South American countries like Chile or dredging the bottom of the oceans and killing all sea life. I think the race to moon is also about Lithium mining IIRC there lots of Lithium on the moon. Where's all the waste Lithium going to go once the batteries die? You will be complaining about Lithium poisoning in decades to come. The fact is that the planet is running out of oil and oil companies need a new source of income. Their not interested in the environment.

  • There's not that many old bangers out on the roads anymore. . . ..

    I was probably wrong to call them 'old bangers'. A problem is that diesel vehicles easily last 20 years nowadays and it's pre 2015 diesels that are the major NOx producers.

    ULEZ was actually a Boris initiative and it worked at forcing private diesels out of central London (although hypocritically exempting taxis) but guess where a lot of those viable diesels went? Outer London and now the scrappage scheme is gone those that bought those diesels are facing a genuine problem.

    Is there an easy solution to this? No.

  • ULEZ isn't about electric cars or even about reducing carbon emissions. It's about the Acid forming NOx and particulate emissions of old bangers that cause lung damage that leads to a lot of deaths

    I do know what ULEZ is have done since it was first put in place , and now being expanded to cover all of the London Boroughs , my post above was to state why the Fire Brigade have had to change the way they deal with EV's and Hybrid's if they develop a fault and catch fire.

  • Besides London , Birmingham, Bristol, Oxford, Glasgow, Bath, Bradford and Portsmouth .

    These will come about in the next year or two

    Manchester, Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Sheffield

    I suppose everyone could grow wings to move around...

  • Because that's not how damage to lungs from long term nitric and nitrous acid in the lungs gets recorded

    Anyway you go argue with Imperial College. I figure they know a whole lot more about this than you or I

    http://erg.ic.ac.uk/Research/home/…072015final.pdf

    New estimate of the NO2 burden (long-term exposure): (Section 2.1). Whilst much less

    certain than for PM2.5., the total mortality burden of long-term exposure to NO2 is estimated
    to be up to 88,113 life-years lost, equivalent to 5,879 deaths at typical ages'

    The first thing to say about this report is that is was commissioned and paid for by TfA and the GLA. This wasn't research that was being done anyway, it was research for the purpose of proving there was a problem so that Sadiq Khan could justify expanding ULEZ.

    The second thing to say is the report uses 2006 levels of PM2.5 rather than more recent figures which would take into consideration that the PM2.5 levels are somewhat lower than 2006 when they were already very low - nearly half in 2015 complared to 2006.

    The report also makes it abundantly clear that the assessment of the Health Impacts of NO2 is far more difficult and imprecise because of the danger of double counting as the health effects of PM2.5 and NO2 overlap by approx 30%.

    There is also the equivalency factor of turning the assessed health effects of PM2.5 and NO2 into deaths per year:

    • The first point here is that since 2000 only one registered death in London has had air pollution on the death certificate and this was a death that was complicated by other issues so it would be hard to state categorically that the death was entirely as a result of air quality. You would think, if air quality was an issue people would be dropping like flies all the time but they are not.
    • The report makes it's assessment in terms of life years lost which means that it is a value equivalent to one person losing one year of life as a result of air quality.
    • As you state in your quote above the report estimates that using 2006 PM2.5 figures and then adding a proportion of NO2 that they believe does not double count the PM2.5 they estimate that 88,113 people will lose one year of their life as a result of air quality in London.
    • This 88,113 life years lost is the equivalent they say of 5,879 deaths which I presume means deaths that could have been purely as a result of air quality. This is obviously a contrived figure, a false equivalent that cannot be proven, I would suspect, except in a very few cases where people had specific respiratory conditions.
    • So why try to make that claim that 5879 people die each year from air quality when that is not true, the death records are not there, it isn't recorded and pollution in London is somewhat less now than the year selected for taking the concentration levels.

    Are you smelling a rat yet?

    Transport for London are currently running radio advertising for the ULEZ expansion. In this ad campaign they use the figure of 4000 deaths per year which is the lower figure (rounded) for PM2.5 and NO2 deaths per year. This is essentially a lie, misinformation if you prefer. TLF make no attempt to qualify that 4000 real people are not dying of air pollution each year, they don't say that there has been some academic work done which they paid for which suggests that some people are going to have some level of reduced life expentancy possible as a result of air quality which won't be the recorded cause of death. Don't you think this is very misleading?

    Statistcs being what they are, can be looked at in different ways for example:

    If the 4000 deaths were real it would constitute just 0.00042% of the population of London each year. Is that something that could justify ULEZ expansion? The implementation of millions of £'s of surveillance cameras to charge £12.50 per day to the 9% of vehicles in London that are not yet ULEZ compliant. That doesn't seem proportionate does it?

    Another way of looking at the same thing is to do this: assume everyone lives to age 75 and then the 9.6 million population of London all have their live expentancy reduced by 1 hour and 3 minutes which is the equivalent to 88,113 life years lost. Suddenly this whole ULEZ and air quality thing starts to look like a bit of a shakedown that doesn't really do anything for peoples quality of life does it?

    As a aside here is an interesting article on air quality on London since the year 1700 to 2016, it looks mainly at the PM2.5 but it shows how London got this under control a long time ago.

    What the history of London’s air pollution can tell us about the future of today’s growing megacities
    Cities in most high-income countries have relatively low levels of local air pollution. This, however, hasn’t always been the case.
    ourworldindata.org

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!