Sadiq Khan has claimed that Nazis have infiltrated protests against London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion schemes, adding that ‘decent members’ of the Tory Party have been swayed by far-right and conspiracy groups, including ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘Covid deniers’.
Khan had already sparked controversy earlier this month when he said during a public Question Time that some people with ‘legitimate objections’ to the ULEZ expansion have been “joining hands” with those from people from ‘far-right groups”.
It seems that the London Mayor has doubled down on his earlier statements, according to The Telegraph. Speaking to the newspaper, which was accused of using divisive rhetoric against cyclists, he claimed that protestors came to Ealing Town Hall a few weeks ago with Swastikas, also adding that Nazi sympathisers had latched on to the protests from “decent Tories” who opposed expanding ULEZ to all 32 London boroughs.
He said that many people opposed ULEZ for good reasons, and he was keen to talk about these problems and would try to address the concerns in the coming weeks.
However, he added: “You need to understand that their opposition has been latched on to by anti-vaxxers, by Covid deniers, conspiracy theorists and Nazis.”
According to the Labour mayor’s plans, the ULEZ – inside which motorists will be charged £12.50 a day for driving non-compliant, high-polluting cars – will be extended to outer London from 29 August, a decision described by Khan as “not easy but necessary to reduce the capital’s toxic air pollution”.
As part of the expansion, a £110m scrappage scheme will also be introduced, which aims to provide low-income Londoners with grants of up to £2,000 to replace their high-polluting vehicles.
At the People’s Question Time event on March 2, Mr Khan had said: “Let’s call a spade a spade; some of those on the outside are part of the far-Right, some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers, and some are Tories.”
Mr Khan’s comments sparked anger in the crowd, with members of the public shouting back to the Mayor: “We are not the far-right – normal people are not the far-right.” Conservative Assembly Member Peter Fortune, also at the event, criticised Mr Khan’s comments, saying: “You heard it didn’t you? If you disagree with the Mayor, he’s going to paint you as far-right.”
After yesterday’s comments, a number of critics lashed out against him. Together Declaration, a group known to push back against cycling and walking schemes like LTNs and 15-minute cities, wrote on Twitter: “‘Nazis'” now is it? Shameful & embarrassing from @SadiqKhan. Desperate & despicable slurs can’t mask the truth: Most Londoners don’t want ULEZ extension Perhaps as well as scrapping his unfair tax it’s time @MayorofLondon resigned as well.”
The far right came to the Mayor’s People’s Question Time last night, bringing a coffin & at least one swastika with @SadiqKhan‘s face on it.
London Tories should condemn not condone this & never forget they have already run one shamefully racist campaign against @MayorofLondon— Emily Thornberry (@EmilyThornberry) March 3, 2023
Lately, Khan has faced increasing pressure from local authorities to reconsider the expansion. Eleven of the 19 outer London councils have expressed their apprehension towards the scheme – over issues such as the seven-month timescale of implementation (which they believe does not give residents enough time to switch vehicles), the scrappage policy, and poor public transport links – while some councils have even considered legal action.
In January, the Conservative-controlled ‘rebel’ councils of Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, and Hillingdon released a joint statement on the expansion, saying they would “do everything in our power to stop it from going ahead”.
A London Assembly member accused Khan of treating the city’s residents “with complete and utter contempt” over his attempt to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
Last month, Boris Johnson also accused Sadiq Khan of threatening to impose “a mad lefty tax” on “hard-pressed motorists”, in the latest high-profile attempt to derail the London mayor’s plans.
Amidst the resistance, the Mayor has been arguing that the opposition to the scheme is simply a political strategy by Tory councils who he says are “in the pocket of vested interests”.
While the extremely vocal opposition to the scheme has become a TalkTV staple, the extent to which it represents the average Londoner has been questioned by some on social media.
Anti-ULEZ protestors having a totally normal one ? 200ish people max, spectacularly undiverse, mixed in with other random conspiracy theory-type messages. Lots of bemused looks from people just getting on with their Saturday – mostly on foot or public transport! pic.twitter.com/uef58JKdwE
— Charlotte Baker (@charlie_baker23) January 28, 2023
Great to have it confirmed that ULEZ opposition comes from a tiny handful of cranks. We can safely move on. https://t.co/VavIH437j7
— Abraham LinkedIn ? (@ukgaragefan) January 29, 2023
Meanwhile, Sadiq Khan has defended the ULEZ scheme and labelled it ‘necessary’ to tackle the city’s increasing pollution and congestion.
Responding to a local’s complaints about ULEZ expansion, a spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: “With around 4000 Londoners a year dying prematurely from toxic air, it is imperative that the Mayor’s decision to expand the ULEZ should be implemented without delay.
“Research by Imperial College London shows that Bromley has the highest number of premature deaths linked to air pollution of all London boroughs – with an estimated 204 lives lost every year.”
The spokesperson also noted that around 85 percent of vehicles in outer London are already compliant with ULEZ regulations.
They continued: “The Mayor is also calling on the Government to provide additional scrappage funding to London and the surrounding areas.
“The Government has provided millions of pounds for scrappage schemes in other parts of the country, but not given a single penny to London.”






















63 thoughts on “Sadiq Khan claims anti-ULEZ protests infiltrated by Nazis, says opponents have joined hands with far-right groups”
Full support for the Mayor of
Full support for the Mayor of London and the GLA. Keep putting in the cycle infrastructure and reduce the cars on the roads. The majority of people in London do not own cars so let’s take the city back for pedestrians, public transport and cycles.
I support what he’s trying to
I support what he’s trying to do, as it has to be done, and sooner rather than later. But I hope his hard-line attitude doesn’t lead to the policy unravelling. It’s hard to press ahead with policies that aren’t supported by the public. A vocal minority can still do a lot of damage and get decisions overturned.
I’m pretty sure that there
I’m pretty sure that there was opposition to prioritising infra that favoured cycling and walking in the Netherlands during the seventies. The government at the time was eventually persuaded by the Stop de Kindermoord protests to radically change their priorities which were heavily influenced by American road planning in a post war Europe. In fact there are motorways that have now been repurposed in some places. The U.K. itself has evidence of pre-war infra that has been sidelined or given over to the motor vehicle and explosion of car ownership. To protect people and environment we really need to be bold about this.
It was definitely a fight –
It was definitely a fight – even though the NL still had a higher cycling modal share then (late 1970s) than we do now*. And a tradition of building cycling infra. (So do we in the UK actually but that’s forgotten history [1] [2] [3])
Riots and criminal damage
Disruptive protests and hassling ministers in person
Getting the kids involved (or alternatively “cynically using children for political ends”…)
* For a long time this was just stopping the decline – although now there are some increases. It’s like the joke “how do you make a small fortune in the Highlands? Start with a big one”.
Same stupid exaggeration from
Same stupid exaggeration from the right as with Gary Lineker’s remarks where saying the government’s language was reminiscent of 1930s Germany (entirely true) was portrayed as “He’s calling the government Nazis!”; Khan has said that Nazi groups are infiltrating the anti-ULEZ/LTN protestors and suddenly “He’s calling ordinary decent people who don’t agree with him Nazis!” One only has to spend five minutes on Twitter or Facebook looking for anti-ULEZ posts to see that it’s entirely true that ultra-right nationalist/racist/anti-Islamic groups make up a significant segment of the opposition.
Below is a still from a video of the weekend anti-ULEZ protest in Orpington made by local Tory MP Gareth Bacon. England’s most prominent Muslim politician portrayed with a target on his forehead, nothing sinister there at all…
Standard ‘guilt by
Standard ‘guilt by association’ smear.
Pretty routine in politics because it works.
Not every (insert group here) is a racist/fascist/bigot but…
Rich_cb wrote:
The way the Tories and their press acolytes have been using antisemitism allegations for the last decade?
Just like that Rendel…
Just like that Rendel…
“Our analysis points to a culture within the [Labour] Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be
seen to accept it.”
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf
Would that be the same EHRC
Would that be the same EHRC that has three times refused to investigate complaints from the Muslim Council of Britain of over 300 instances of Islamaphobia in the Tory party?
A delightful example of
A delightful example of whataboutery.
There was a significant problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn as the report above demonstrates unequivocally.
Antisemitism in the Labour party was not therefore an example of ‘guilt by association’ just an example of straightforward guilt.
Did you ever study the
Did you ever study the dossier? I thought it was thin gruel when I had a look at part of it.
The ECHR desicison was not a surprise.
mattw wrote:
Only as much as what I read in news reports. As far as I could see it found that a few members of the Labour Party had been engaged in antisemitic abuse and that the leadership had not dealt with it as promptly or efficiently as they might have done, I’ve certainly seen nothing to suggest an endemic culture of antisemitism. The very quote that Rich seems to think is a zinger shows this:
Effectively, one way of looking at it (“at best”) is that the measures/mechanisms to act against antisemitism when alleged were insufficient. I absolutely accept that the party management should have taken allegations more seriously and acted more swiftly on them. Nothing there that says the party or its leadership itself is/was antisemitic.
So the Labour MPs who
So the Labour MPs who personally experienced anti-semitic abuse were making it up?
Rich_cb wrote:
Clearly, not everyone who opposes ULEZ is any of those things. But it is definitely true that the opposing ULEZ has been picked up by anti-vaxxers/COVID deniers. I see that every Sunday in my urban village.
Extremists will attempt to
Extremists will attempt to attach themselves to any popular protest movement.
COVID has unfortunately brought conspiracy theorists into the mainstream and we’ll see them attach themselves to all manner of protests from now on.
However – not a smear if
However – not a smear if there are indeed racists etc. in the other “main” group and these are not being challenged.
The way to avoid “guilt by association” is not to minimise it but to ensure you’re not associating with those you don’t approve of. If they come and try to piggyback on your cause note it, speak out against it and take measures to discourage those views being linked with yours.
It’s also routine in politics to get support wherever you can, and take the moral high ground only once you’ve benefitted from tacitly permitting the “unacceptable”.
I support his ULEZ expansion.
I support his ULEZ expansion. I’ve followed him on Twitter and some of the comments he gets are horrendous. The extreme right really does have it in for him and has certainly been maniuplating the anti-ULEZ feeling. I know a few people against ULEZ and when you confront them with facts about pollution they just go, “….but, but but,” and have no substance to what they’re saying.
You can get a 2006 petrol car that’s ULEZ compliant for less than £1000 so the stuff about people not being able to afford new cars is a load of rubbish. And older cars or motorcycles can be adapted and it doesn’t even cost an arm and a leg. my neighbour’s 2001 Honda was adapted to meet the requirements and she certainly is not rich.
For the far right he is
For the far right he is nearly the worst thing imaginable. A person who isn’t white who refuses to be bullied.
(If he was a woman he would tick all their hate boxes)
He could introduce financial incentives to drink beer and watch football and they would find a way to hate him for it.
I would really like to feel
I would really like to feel that Khan really does want to increase cycling in the captial. However it’s rather easy to see though his ULEZ expansion for what it is – income raising.
Sad thing is that it gives easy fodder for the anti-LTN mob because of his poorly run consultation. However Khan hasn’t been a great Mayor and it’s easy to see though his politics of division unfortunately…
Yup. It is just playing into
Yup. It is just playing into the hands of the Tories, particularly on the border. I genuinely think come the next election we will be stuck with our Tory MP in Dartford and part of the reason will be ULEZ. Check his Facebook page and it is just ULEZ, ULEZ, ULEZ, In a somewhat successful attempt to rally people against both Khan and Labour.
It’s just empty words when there is mention of;
“many people opposed ULEZ for good reasons, and he was keen to talk about these problems and would try to address the concerns in the coming weeks.”
The impact of ULEZ is both overplayed by MPs like ours, but also ignored by Khan when it comes to genuine concerns of small business operating on the border of boroughs like Bexley while we are in a cost of living crisis.
Meaningful change is hard. I
Meaningful change is hard. I’m pleased Khan is not backing down.
LOL!
LOL! It isn’t meaningful at all. It is just revenue generation that disregards genuiine concerns and issues at the borders and outer boroughs.
I agree but I belive Khan is
I agree but I belive Khan is fighting the wrong fight – this I believe will do very little for active travel…
Zjtm231 wrote:
You could say that about anything the government discourages via taxation. Why is driving any different?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I would really like to feel that Khan really does want to increase cycling in the captial. However it’s rather easy to see though his ULEZ expansion for what it is – income raising.— ShutTheFrontDawes You could say that about anything the government discourages via taxation. Why is driving any different?— Zjtm231
sacred
cowcarYou can enourage other
You can enourage other transport without taxing…Khan has done nothing for LTNs and virtually nothing on proper separate cycling infrastrucure. For eample the closure of Bank Junction was done entirely by City of London nothing to do with Khan. He is transparent.
Zjtm231 wrote:
That will be because the City of London Corporation is the highways authority for Bank junction and the GLA has no authority over what goes on within the Corporation’s boundaries (despite which UTAG and GLA Conservatives still say it’s the Mayor’s fault).
Zjtm231 wrote:
No mention of why cars are different it seems…
I wonder why? Because they aren’t perhaps?
How else are you going to
How else are you going to dissuade owners of the most polluting vehicles from driving in th ULEZ area if you don’t use financial incentives?
HarrogateSpa wrote:
just ban them. since charges and fines are (allegedly) only about revenue, anyone breaching the rules gets their car confiscated for a week.
There are other ways – for
There are other ways – for example; where is Khan’s support for LTNs?
Zjtm231 wrote:
There is the minor fact that he introduced them to London with £250 million of Covid safe neighbourhood money, that he’s been to court (and won) to defend their existence in the face of legal challenges, that he has continually stated that he supports them and wishes to see their expansion and so on. Honestly, he can’t win, can he, anti-LTN activists blame him for supporting them and now people who apparently support them blame him for not doing so?
The ULEZ scheme is not about
The ULEZ scheme is not about revenue generation. It’s about reducing airborne pollution and improving public health.
That is an admirable aim with
That is an admirable aim with which I agree. Unfortunately due to Kahn having a poor record with cycling infrastructure and completely useless at selling the ULEZ it is rather apparent he is using that as a facade for what people are saying is a tax. For example where is Khan’s big support for LTN’s?
OldRidgeback wrote:
I’m not sure – most of outer London doesn’t have a big problem with the pollutants the scheme targets. Sure there are hotspots, as in inner London, and they should be dealt with – but there appears decent evidence that the solution isn’t very tailored to the problem. Unless the problem is revenue generation.
Bromley counts as outer
Bromley counts as outer London and has amongst the worst air pollution, same for Croydon.
OldRidgeback wrote:
People also seem to ignore the fact that cars are, by definition, mobile.
“There is terrible pollution around the shopping centre, a lot of it caused by pre-2006 vehicles.”
“Yes, well, that’s bad but I don’t live anywhere near the shopping centre, the air in my neighbourhood meets official standards so why should I have to give up my pre-2006 vehicle?”
“What do you use your vehicle for?”
“Well, driving to the shopping centre, mainly.”
Pollution spreads. Rather reminds one of the point made around the time of the smoking ban, “Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a pissing section in a swimming pool, it’s not going to stay there, is it?”
OldRidgeback wrote:
Bromley is a great example, I know it quite well (as, I think, do you, so apologies if the following is obvious – but it’s still a good example). It’s the largest London borough by area and one of the most populous. It’s also extremely diverse, taking in the likes of Crystal Palace (quite inner-city in nature – narrow, traffic-clogged streets but good public transport options – you can just ban dirty vehicles there outright for all I care), though sprawling low density suburbs with limited public transport – but about half of Bromley is rural or semi-rural with very little public transport. And while I like cycling those country lanes on a sunny Sunday, I wouldn’t expect people to do it every day in all weathers in daylight or darkness. Such areas have virtually no traffic pollution issues – in contrast to what Rendel says, they’re very localised (PM concentrations very greatly over a matter of metres, not miles).
The practicality and politics of all this is quite hard, so I’ve sympathy for Khan – but a one-size-fits-all policy that isn’t hugely effective, hits poor residents hardest but just happens to raise a handy sum from people who don’t vote from him anyway doesn’t obviously seem optimal to me.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
You’ve misunderstood me – maybe I expressed myself badly – I didn’t mean the pollution from non-compliant cars in low-pollution areas would spread on the wind, rather that the people using those cars are obviously going to use them to drive to other parts of London, including high pollution areas, and contribute to the pollution there when they do, aren’t they?
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m quite happy for people driving high pollution cars to high pollution areas to be penalised, particularly where there are good alternatives. Where they aren’t driving to pollution hotspots, especially where there aren’t good alternatives, the case for penalising them in the same way seems much less compelling.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
I tend to agree (though it would still be good if they could be encouraged to switch from their high-polluting models) but I can’t really see how in a metropolitan area like London one could create a huge number of “permitted” and “no-go” areas for different makes of car without creating mass confusion and discontent.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I tend to agree (though it would still be good if they could be encouraged to switch from their high-polluting models) but I can’t really see how in a metropolitan area like London one could create a huge number of “permitted” and “no-go” areas for different makes of car without creating mass confusion and discontent.
— Dnnnnnn
I think we’re agreed. I wrote earlier that the “The practicality and politics of all this is quite hard” – but motorists already cope with lots of different rules and restrictions (e.g. bus lanes, speed limits, school zones, parking restrictions, congestion charge), so having an outer London approach which isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t seem entirely impractical and seems more easily defensible.
There could be a 6 or 12 month phase-in period or a “first offence” approach where you get a letter saying, “next time/after X date you’ll be charged for going there in that vehicle” (the current proposal does have the benefit of simplicity and that no-one can say they didn’t know!).
But it’s not up to me, and I’m glad of that. Happy riding.
As a statement of fact, there
As a statement of fact, there is a very far-right* element attaching itself to the anti-ULEZs and anti-LTNs protests.
Now, if I was a reasonable person and I was getting into bed with the very far right* I’d need some objective facts why my protest is right and seperate to the very far right* that I’m joining. My fact checking would be scrupulous. Because getting into bed with the very far-right* is is not a place a reasonable person wants to be.
As a rule, the Anti brigade are not in any way shape or form doing any sort of fact-checking. It’s balls to wall lies and misinformation, misinformation that is very easily corrected by anyone with an interest in facts. That’s not to say the “for” brigade have done a good enough job on proving the benefits because they haven’t, but it’s a false equivalence to say this is comparable to the lies and misinformation of the antis.
In conclusion, it does suggest that a significant proportion of the anti’s are reasonably comfortable with the company they are keeping. And that’s as good a reason as any to keep them out of your neighbourhood.
*everyone is getting very emotional about attaching the n word, but if you have seen some of the protesters, it’s difficult not to.
So more than slightly like
So more than slightly like Brexit then.
eburtthebike wrote:
It would appear to follow a similar populist playbook.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
Rejection of facts and evidence in favour of an emotional narrative.
Prioritisation of selfish wants over the good of society.
Callous disregard for those poorer or more vulnerable than themselves.
Yeah, I’d say there’s more than a passing resemblance. ?
Eton Rifle wrote:
Criticising another side is easy. Making many kinds of change happen is hard.
I’d (slightly sadly) suggest that if you can’t provide an emotional narrative your facts and evidence won’t get you very far. People do most of their deciding before you get to the rational argument. Unless it really is an issue they have no opinion on – which I suspect is rarely the case when trying to get people to change their existing patterns.
Similarly unless your proposed change has got some pretty good selfish benefits to offer it’s not going to get much support. Of course benefits can include “feeling good about yourself” but there’s a lot of competition to offer that…
Unfortunately we all disregard those poorer and more vulnerable than ourselves on a daily basis. To change that it definitely helps to show that it’s not in your interest to do so. Pollution is a difficult case because most individual’s contributions are tiny and it will often “blow away” or be diluted.
chrisonatrike wrote:
This was the failure the remain campaign made, they never made the emotional case for staying in the EU they only made the factual financial case. Which the opposition disputed and called project fear and promised alternative facts of saving £350m a week which could (but not necesarily) be ploughed into the NHS
despite
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’d consider that the biggest issue was not believing that so many people would vote for Brexit. The voter turnout was reduced amongst younger people who would stand to lose the most by the result – if they’d bothered to turn up, then the result would have been different.
It is an established fact
It is an established fact that SOME of the anti-ULEZ crowd are nutters, cranks, conspiracy theorists, and that some of them are genuinely members of what a reasonable person would describe as neo-nazi organisations (Patriotic Alternative and the like).
I genuinely don’t see why the mainstream anti-ULEZ crowd are getting up arms about Khan stating facts, rather than reflecting on how to distinguish themselves from the unpleasant elements who are clearly present.
the little onion wrote:
If you find yourself in a group that tolerates neo-nazis, then you’re in a neo-nazi rally.
It’s the intolerance of tolerance paradox whereby a tolerant society has to be intolerant of those that seek to destroy it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
That was much more pithy than my lengthy gubbins. Cheers
The difficulty with that
The difficulty with that approach is that it quickly becomes used to shut down dissent.
If a policy is being widely criticised, find one critic who is some sort of -ist and bingo all those who are protesting can be dismissed.
It’s exactly what Khan is doing with ULEZ protests.
You can’t hold everybody who is opposed to ULEZ expansion responsible for what some idiots post online and you absolutely can’t dismiss the protests on that basis either.
Rich_cb wrote:
I can see your point – you can get trouble makers getting involved in protests just as a method of disrupting the protests. However, if you find yourself in a group with many racists and are not interested in facts, then you’re on the wrong side.
I’m not convinced that you’re correct about Khan falsely trying to discredit the ULEZ protests – there does seem to be a lot of far-right involvement with the ULEZ protests. There’s also the inherent selfishness of people wanting to continue to pollute because it’s convenient for them and you can see that the protest is going to attract people who don’t care about communities and the welfare of our environment.
If you care about the protest that you’re in, you’ll call out and expell any racists that are joining in, unless of course you kinda share their views.
I haven’t looked at any
I haven’t looked at any online activity related to ULEZ but don’t doubt there will be racists using it as an opportunity to attack Khan.
The ‘in person’ protests do seem to be almost entirely about ULEZ, a few anti LTN/15 min ers but no obvious racists or far righters in the pictures and videos I’ve seen.
The odd thing is that I broadly support the idea of a ULEZ but Khan has gone about it in the worst way possible, it’s a major policy and should have been in his manifesto for mayor which I don’t believe it was (caveat: I haven’t read the manifesto myself so am relying on others for this information).
Rich_cb wrote:
From: https://sadiq.london/sadiqs-manifesto-for-london/
Now, I don’t have a strong opinion about Khan, but I’m a fan of not continuing to poison our environment, so also a fan of ULEZs, even if they are proposed by a non-green party.
This is exactly why you
This is exactly why you shouldn’t trust what people tell you!
If what he’s doing now was in his manifesto then it seems perfectly legitimate from a democratic point of view.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
“Nigel”?
Some people just don’t see
Some people just don’t see that caring about tomorrow is their problem. As the saying goes, if not us then who? If not now then when?
I think this rhetoric by Khan
I think this rhetoric by Khan risks him losing the moral high ground on this one.
IMO the argument has been won, and there’s no need for it. He’d be better off pointing out the Conservative Government origin of the policy.
Ah – a Friday, and a Khan
Ah – a Friday, and a Khan article… Where will the chat go?
Khaaaaannnnnnn!
Khaaaaannnnnnn!
Is it a target or is it a no
Is it a target or is it a no sign..? There’s only one way to find out…