Forum Topic

Sadiq Khan accused of manipulating Ulez poll after excluding thousands of votes

More than 5,200 votes from motoring groups, equivalent to one in 10 responses, were discounted by officials, reducing opposition and allowing Mr Khan to claim there was no “overwhelming” dissent.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/16/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-accused-manipulating-poll-expand-ulez/?WT.mc_id=e_DM94047&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Cit_New_v2&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Cit_New_v220230117&utm_campaign=DM94047

Les Wilson ● 1342d34 Comments

It wasn't a poll, it was a consultation. The Mayor had little choice but to implement the ULEZ expansion because it was baked into the agreement with the government funding package. Bear this in mind when government ministers criticise the Mayor for introducing it.In isolation the expansion is a really poor move but it does have the redeeming feature that the surplus will bring in money to be invested in transport.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1342d

Seems to me you cannot win, on the one hand there are people campaigning for cleaner air and worried about the health of children and people with existing health problems - then on the other when the Mayor takes steps to address these concerns all hell breaks loose. This government are very adept at blackmail both where this is concerned and TfL funding, then it is so easy to pass the blame to the Mayor.

Vanessa Smith ● 1342d

The article is behind a paywall so I cannot see the details. Are you able to share which poll is being referenced? With 52,000 responses, it must have been a very major one.

Paul Scullion ● 1342d

"The Mayor had little choice but to implement the ULEZ expansion because it was baked into the agreement with the government funding package. Bear this in mind when government ministers criticise the Mayor for introducing it."That is possibly a good plausible thought rather than the truth for which no records  show that thought process being true eitherThe goverment on the 24th may under boris told the mayor not to proceed with such plans. About the same time he was asking for more TFL money.And again in early december in PMQs under rishi “My Honourable Friend will know that transport in London is devolved to the Labour Mayor of London, but it is disappointing that the Mayor, backed by the Leader of the Opposition, is choosing not to listen to the public. The zone is being expanded against the overwhelming views of residents and businesses, and I’d urgently consider the Mayor, and the gentleman opposite, to be on the side of hardworking Londoners.”

Julian Pavey ● 1342d

The whole thing is laughable when stats prove it will make negligible difference, if any, to air pollution and they still want to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow.

Claire Moran ● 1341d

Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation together with its pro fossil fuel lobby seems to have now morphed into the Net Carbon Scrutiny Group and moved into 55/57 Tufton Street. with Think Tanks.https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-lord-lawson-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-change-bbc-radio-four/

Philippa Bond ● 1341d

morphed into the Net Carbon Scrutiny Group and moved into 55/57 Tufton Street. with Think Tanks.Completely agree with this Phillipa and what's more the level of consistent and virtually identical messaging as well as timing of posts by many Climate denying sceptics in the media with big twitter followings leaves me to conclude that they are all getting briefings from somewhere.

Matthew Swain ● 1341d

Julian, this is a complicated question but we aren't going to get any closer to the truth by quoting something that was said by a Boris Johnson government.What we do know for sure is that the government did make Sadiq Khan increase the scope and rate of the Congestion Charge (as opposed to the ULEZ) as a condition of its financial settlement.It was also made plain, aggressively so under Johnson and Gilligan, that TfL would have to increase revenue generation  as the government would not be fully covering the decline in revenues for transport in London (unlike for every city elsewhere in the UK). The government has covered its tracks better on the ULEZ than the Congestion Charge presenting it as Khan's decision but do you really think if he scrapped the expansion and asked the government to cover the shortfall, they would say yes? Hence my use of the phrase 'baked in'.From what I hear from people closer to these matters, Johnson and Gilligan were determined to use the situation to force the Mayor to scrap a range of popular policies such as the Fare Freeze, the Night Tube and make him take unpopular measures such as Freedom Pass restrictions, higher fares and increased Congestion and ULEZ charges. The Sunak administration doesn't seem interested in such games and quickly granted a longer term funding deal to give a bit of stability for the system.What I can't say is whether or not Khan is a true believer in ULEZ expansion. I somehow doubt it as it is such a self-evidently bad idea the only redeeming feature of which is that revenue raised will go to public transport. Perhaps he sees it as providing infrastructure for the eventual introduction of road pricing which will be both fairer and more effective in reducing emissions.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1341d

My point was the goverment under any of the three Pms never told sadiq to epand the ULEZ. They told him to increase the congestion charge which he did in 2020 but people in numbers never plugged the shortfall due to people working from home. We had i think another 2 meetings for funding with goverment and again expading ULEZ was never on table. The mayor talks about conditions in increasing the congestion charge but does not say goverment insisted on expanding the ULEZ. If they did he would be the first to say so  TFL had a anual £740M funding shortfall at the time and sadiq put the congestion charge up. He did and that brought in another £800M which plugged the gap but then he says by 2025 the annual shortfall will be 1.5Bn. Again,numbers differ depending on where you lookBut at the same time he says  "The Mayor's target is for 80% of trips made in the capital in 2041 to be by walking, cycling or public transport, and the target for central London is 95% of trips to be made by these sustainable types of travel" Given the numbers working 3-4 days a week at home and then getting people to walk and cycle more brings the numbers paying to travel by public transport down even more.And then the price of travel goes up and a bigger shrtfall while the workers strike for more money and no job losses or blocking modernisation. He knows the shortfall will grow with changes and the expansion was always at the bottom of the page. Now he is planning ahead for whats to come. A bigger shortfall. If something is not done about public transport and its operational costs without putting prices up we are in a big deep hole in years to come. People hybrid working had risen every month in 2022 as business restructure according to the office of national statistics

Julian Pavey ● 1341d

People are very quick to jump on Sadiq Khan - but no mention of this government 'fiddling' when it comes to this nonsense of having to take I.D. with us when we go to vote. Voter fraud is hardly known in this country, but this bunch of Tories know the poorer people are much less likely to have a passport or driving licence, and possibly more likely not to be Tory voters. Yes, you can apply for an I.D. but in reality how many people will be that bothered to do that?

Vanessa Smith ● 1341d

"People are very quick to jump on Sadiq Khan - but no mention of this government 'fiddling'"  Forums are all about chat and some people dont understand that chat moves away from the original subject just likes chats over a pint do.  But that is us and them vanessa. Bit like cars and bikes but we are now onto goverment fiddling and I.D cards. Some are very quick to jump onto the goverment. Perhaps both deserve criticism ? but not so much one sided?

Julian Pavey ● 1341d

Don't think Julian is jumping on Sadiq Khan, his views are perfectly reasonable given the available facts. The one thing most people seem agreed on is the ULEZ and its expansion were badly conceived schemes and that the Mayor is principally responsible for their introduction.I think that the government has been complicit in its introduction, Julian thinks not. The available evidence allows both interpretations.Although the revenue from ULEZ will steadily decline, it has created a charging infrastructure for a revised scheme that will need to be introduced when the majority of vehicles are electric. Therefore both the Mayor and the government recognise that a consistent revenue stream has been created that will reduce the burden on direct taxation to fund transport in London.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1341d

Nice bit of whataboutery there, Vanessa. Might be better if you started a separate thread on the subject.

Richard Greenhough ● 1340d

It seems that some behaviours have not been consigned to the history books.

Philippa Bond ● 1340d

Boris Johnson when Mayor of London announced the introductions of the world's first ULEZ but then left his successor to implement it.

Philippa Bond ● 1340d

Hey Les,did you know that in the original consultation for the cycle lane on Chiswick High Road TfL excluded 975 responses in support of it because they were clearly organised and from a template.When that happened the local car lobby and its political arm, the Chiswick Conservatives, cried foul on the basis that this clearly demonstrated that the Evil Cycle Lobby was organising its loyal cult members to sway the result.Interesting that when the same thing happened with the ULEZ consultation the same local car lobby, and its political arm, cry foul again. But this time on the basis that the action undermines democracy.And such are the double standards of the car lobby in Chiswick.The only real learning from this is that Hounslow Council should exclude all obviously organised responses to its own consultations and especially those with an email template drafted and distributed by local Conservative politicians.And one more thing while I'm here. No of course the expansion of ULEZ isn't a stupid idea Jeremy and of course it isn't universally opposed apart from in your brain. It's removing the most polluting vehicles from London which is very clearly a self-evidently good idea that is supported by a great many Londoners who care about the impact of air quality on the health of all of us.

Paul Campbell ● 1340d

Responses from a template are valid.  I sign lots of petitions using a temmplate.  Most of us are very busy (with a few exceptions of people able to spend hours on long rambling debates) and go with the template as otherwise I wouldn't have time to sign.

Claire Moran ● 1340d

Did I actually say that the ULEZ is universally opposed Paul? If I did I must be a complete idiot because I don't actually oppose it myself. While it is a deeply flawed proposal, the alternative is a reduction in investment into public transport so I recognise it is necessary.It does not remove the most polluting vehicles from London - those are buses and commercial vehicles, and although emissions from them will be reduced they will remain.The notion that the ULEZ improves air quality overall is highly debatable. There will be a fall in NO2 but the trend in motor vehicle purchase for people to buy larger cars. A ten year old diesel hatchback will have smaller emmissions overall than brand new ULEZ complaint SUV.It will cause people to make the switch to electric which are much heavier than the equivalent fossil fuel vehicle so, although tailpipe emissions will fall to zero, there will be an increase in particulate emissions from brakes and tyres.The scientific consensus is that particulates are worse for our health than NO2, so it really can't be sustainably argued that the ULEZ improves our air quality other than the money it provides for public transport will reduce the number of motor vehicle journeys made.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1340d

"Did I actually say that the ULEZ is universally opposed Paul?""The one thing most people seem agreed on is the ULEZ and its expansion were badly conceived schemes"Well you came pretty close! I'll not be drawn into the usual evidence-free bluster about the supposed lack of impact of ULEZ on air quality. Same old posturing from the car lobby which realises that saying "leave us alone to drive whatever car we choose to drive when and where we like" isn't a strong argument against efforts to improve air quality and public health. I do admire the mental gymnastics that they engage in to prove that removing polluting cars from roads doesn't improve air quality and that cycle lanes increase pollution. But I admire the likes of Mark Talbot much more because they are honest old-fashioned petrolheads that admit they just don't like driving being restricted in any way. "If I did I must be a complete idiot because I don't actually oppose it myself."Well let's just say who needs enemies when they've got supporters like you ....

Paul Campbell ● 1340d

It is probably going to take too long to explain to you why circumstances might lead someone to support a proposal that they believe is less than ideal.Would it however, be too much to ask you to refrain from the culture war name calling, and say why you believe the points I have raised can be dismissed as 'evidence-free bluster'?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1340d

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iSkSuukO6SU&feature=share

Steve Taylor ● 1329d

The only poll I've seen on extending the ULEZ is one carried our by YouGov - the well known poll company, referred to in this article.https://www.onlondon.co.uk/dave-hill-oppose-the-ulez-all-you-like-a-consultation-is-still-not-a-referendum/If you read this, you will see that 51% of Londoners are in favour of the change compared that 27% oppose it.

Guy Lambert ● 1329d

I have a hunch that it will be put back to anothr date On the radio yesterday it said that 77% of people in outer london whos house income was less than 20k had cars that were not compliant Nor sure where that was taken or if true. Sounds high to me

Julian Pavey ● 1329d

That sounds very high.  At the end of 2021, 58% of cars on the road were petrol, and 37% diesel.The vast majority of those petrols are going to be under 16 years old and ULEZ compliant, so that 77% figure just sounds wrong.Jeremy Parkinson raised a very valid issue about the weight of cars and increased particulates.  Tyre and brake wear is a much bigger souce of particulates than exhausts. The ULEZ is just tinkering around the edges.

Al Webber ● 1329d

As the Tropic headline suggests officials, with the mayor's blessing have hidden 5,200 pollsters votes from scrutiny, thereby falsifying conclusions to further ULEZ expansion.Should these serious allegations prove true I believe Sajid Khan will find himself in deep trouble.

Denis I. Fox ● 1329d

TfL removed about 1000 template responses to the CS9 consultation, nearly 20% of the total. The template came from the LCC. A consultation is a chance to express specific concerns about a proposal - it's not a referendum. Hence removing template responses which just repeat the same points is appropriate.  What's different this time round?

Tom Pike ● 1329d

That is quite simpleIt is said that the mayor knew of the running results with  weeks to go and then things were put in place to target younger people with didgital campaign on Snapchat and Instagram."Nearly 5,000 so-called "copy and paste" email responses opposed to the ULEZ extension - organised by the pro-motorist Fair Fuel campaign group - were also excluded from the tally.""When factored into the consultation process, these measures together reduced the percentage of those who were against the scheme from 67% to 59%". You cant spin something if the above is true which still is to run i believe. I would be concerned myself over the sudden decision to run a digital campaign on Snapchat and Instagram and why after half way through consultation I know that snapchat in didgital media terms is to target young people. I would never had thought ELEZ digital campaign on such platforms was ever a thought. It came after results were known over half way through and then did the mayor know? which is another question.

Julian Pavey ● 1328d

If they had been monitoring twitter the would have seen the pro-fossil fuel/climate change deniers exhorting their followers to vote more than once on consjltations.  If you look at the Desmog website you will learn a lot about these characters ie who a lot of them are and who has been funding them.

Philippa Bond ● 1328d

Forget twitterIts toxic by about 2% of the same people when it comes to names like the mayor in this case,its not relevant so needs no monitoring. Just ignoredI was talking snapchat,the real big number of people on that platform are 18/30. My question is why target snapchat late in the day at a cost.To me it seems it needed to boost its ULEZ campaign as one would never from the start target sucha  place over ULEZ.Anyway,seems the Pressure is indeed mounting on London mayor from councils which i beleive will push the start date back.

Julian Pavey ● 1328d

Obviously a professional polling company, asking a basket of potential voters balanced against the characteristics they are aware of (gender, age, politics etc etc) will have a more realistic view of public opinion compared to a self-selected bunch of 'voters' who response to consultation (which is never a 'vote')

Guy Lambert ● 1328d

Chicanery is at play here.If anybody fails to see that they are not being entirely honest.

Denis I. Fox ● 1328d

I think you'll find the figure is 15% of vehicles in outer London are ULEZ non compliant. And 4,000 London pollution early deaths a year. 

John Hall ● 1328d

"I think you'll find the figure is 15% of vehicles in outer London are ULEZ non compliant"The figure mentioned was in households with an income of 20k or less.I however think 77% is knowwhere correct with that factored into the scenario. But if you take TFL numbers,only 53% of households with an income of 25k or less own a car. So the percentage of 20k and below has to be higher but then how many of that percentage dont have a car that compliant. It obviously goes up

Julian Pavey ● 1328d

Yes, check out who is receiving large donations from fossil fuel organisations to fund their lifestyles and who is lobbying the Govt for their own interests from Tufton Street.

Philippa Bond ● 1328d