Sadiq Khan claims anti-ULEZ protests infiltrated by Nazis, says opponents have joined hands with far-right groups

Khaaaaannnnnnn!

So more than slightly like Brexit then.

eburtthebike wrote:

So more than slightly like Brexit then.

It would appear to follow a similar populist playbook.

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

So more than slightly like Brexit then.

It would appear to follow a similar populist playbook.

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:

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. 🙄

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:

I'd (slightly sadly) suggest that if you can't provide an emotional narrative your facts and evidence won't get you very far. 

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

• never having actually paid £350m a week to the EU because of the rebate
• receiving half of the remainder back in grants spent within the UK
• Loss of tax revenue caused by economic harm of brexit.

wycombewheeler 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

• never having actually paid £350m a week to the EU because of the rebate
• receiving half of the remainder back in grants spent within the UK
• Loss of tax revenue caused by economic harm of brexit.

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 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:

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. 

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:

the little onion wrote:

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. 

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.

That was much more pithy than my lengthy gubbins. Cheers

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:

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.

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 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:

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).

From: https://sadiq.london/sadiqs-manifesto-for-london/

Quote:

Fourth, I promise even more world- leading action on tackling air pollution. The central London ULEZ I introduced in 2019 in the face of Tory opposition has seen toxic emissions slashed by over 40%. But I want more Londoners to benefit from cleaner air, so I’ll expand the ULEZ in October 2021.

My London scrappage schemes are proving extremely popular in providing financial support to low-income Londoners and small- business owners. Our £52.5m scheme has helped take almost 9,000 polluting vehicles off the road. I will explore the option of an extension to emergency service workers, as well as calling on the government to commit resources.

However, my ambition doesn’t end there — I’ll work with local authorities, Business Improvement Districts and communities that wish to go further and introduce zero-emission zones. Beyond the expansion of ULEZ, I’ll monitor all existing road-charging schemes to ensure they continue to bring the maximum benefits of improved air quality and reduced congestion, and I’ll identify where further action is needed to eradicate hotspots for air pollution.

Given impacts on air quality, climate change and noise nuisance, I’ll continue to oppose the Tory Government’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow as well as any expansion of flights at City Airport. I’ll work with the city’s airports, so that everything possible is being done to reduce exposure to toxic air, particularly to those who work at airports. I’ll also fight for updated legislation that introduces a national target of WHO-recommended standard for PM2.5 by 2030, and also gives London additional powers to clean up London’s air pollution beyond transport.

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 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:

*everyone is getting very emotional about attaching the n word, but if you have seen some of the protesters, it's difficult not to.

"Nigel"?

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'm pleased Khan is not backing down.

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 fighting the wrong fight - this I believe will do very little for active travel...

Zjtm231 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.

You could say that about anything the government discourages via taxation. Why is driving any different?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Zjtm231 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.

You could say that about anything the government discourages via taxation. Why is driving any different?

sacred cow car

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:

For eample the closure of Bank Junction was done entirely by City of London nothing to do wiht Kahn. 

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).