>He went on to say that Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan's plans to expand London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) played a part in the Tory win.
Well, there are indeed plenty of entitled assholes in the imperial core, but such assertions needs more evidence than "gut".
One party wanted it and it was unpopular, the other party did not. The party that wanted it narrowly lost (by less than 500 votes out of 30,000). It *is* reasonable to say the unpopular policy was either responsible for the loss or contributed to it.
It's not as simple as that. It also wasn't a failure of tactical voting. Mainly, Labour lost.
ULEZ is a good thing. It's a tax on old, smelly, polluting, mainly diesel vehicles. In the city with terrible air pollution. It should be extended and at the same time all charcoal barbecues, bonfires, solid fuel fires, 2 stroke garden tools should also be banned.
But the Right Wing Contrarians have turned ULEZ expansion into a culture war issue. Just like 15 minute Cities and complaints about cycle lanes.
But mainly couldn't win in the constituency of the disgraced former Prime Minister Johnson. It should have been a piece of cake. Despite the sections of Uxbridge that are rich, pro-Brexit and racist. And despite Voter ID.
Labour Lost.
So labour couldn't win there, purely because of the demographics and political views of the electorate there? They didn't have a chance? What do you think they should have done differently to win? Be more racist?
IMHO, Labour don't have a good opposition story. And I worry they simply don't try hard enough. Why Vote against the Blue Tory when the Red Tory is identical?
With all the justified disgust at the Johnson, Truss, Sunak administrations, it should have been easy to fight a very negative campaign against the failings. Especially in Uxbridge. "He lied to you, they're still lying to you". And then get the vote out. I suspect they thought it was the easy win and focussed everything on Selby.
Mainly, I just think they lost it.
That sounds like going to a red state in the US, saying "Trump was an incompetent asshole, you all should vote for a Democrat!" and then being surprised and disappointed when it does not happen.
Vaguely true, but not a great analogy. It ought to give you a head start, but you still have to convert that into votes. And avoid falling into the elephant trap the other side left behind.
Unfortunately Labour have a history of walking into those traps. We all know they're scams but Labour still don't have a credible strategy to counteract them.
I think this story has a larger meta relevance than the local issues involved. It shows the incompetence and/or tone-deafness of elected representatives and political parties. *"Hey, let's penalize the average person who is already getting hit with increased costs of living! Let's offer them only the stick and no carrot!"*
And on the other side, the ordinary person's reaction to *"I can either pay more to help reduce environmental damage or elect representatives who will maintain the status quo?"*
*"Status quo, please!"*
Absolutely. Also democracy only works when we have a free and fair press. We don't have that here and so these issues get pushed into a cost of living issue rather than an environmental issue. People can't vote effectively if they haven't got the correct information.
SS. Labour (a party that acknowledges the climate issue) lost one of the three by-elections being held yesterday. This has been blamed on their plans to extend ULEZ (ultra-low emissions zones) to outer London. Although in principle the policy is popular, the zone comes with a charge of £12.50 a day to use higher polluting vehicles. In a time of economic strife, poorer people cannot afford the charges, or to buy a newer, less polluting vehicle.
Related to collapse because this shows that politicians can't get environmental policies right, they always come with too much stick and not enough carrot. Even though most people see the problem and agree it needs to be fixed, they won't vote for it if it ends up costing them money or makes their lives inconvenient. Tackling the climate catastrophe is impossible for elected officials. Another way is needed.
>Tackling the climate catastrophe is impossible for elected officials. Another way is needed.
That leaves authoritarian rule or corporations suddenly becoming responsible. I don't want the one and I could avoid global warming by moving to Hell for the other, since it would freeze over before corporate responsibility happened.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Bellybutton_fluffjar:
---
SS. Labour (a party that acknowledges the climate issue) lost one of the three by-elections being held yesterday. This has been blamed on their plans to extend ULEZ (ultra-low emissions zones) to outer London. Although in principle the policy is popular, the zone comes with a charge of £12.50 a day to use higher polluting vehicles. In a time of economic strife, poorer people cannot afford the charges, or to buy a newer, less polluting vehicle.
Related to collapse because this shows that politicians can't get environmental policies right, they always come with too much stick and not enough carrot. Even though most people see the problem and agree it needs to be fixed, they won't vote for it if it ends up costing them money or makes their lives inconvenient. Tackling the climate catastrophe is impossible for elected officials. Another way is needed.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/155gp1u/uxbridge_byelection_ulez_expansion_blamed_for/jsu7cpo/
15 Comments
dumnezero@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
dumnezero@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
jbond23@reddit
Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)
jbond23@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
jbond23@reddit
BTRCguy@reddit
Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)
Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)
BTRCguy@reddit
cornflake_tornado@reddit
StatementBot@reddit