Anyone who lives near major arterial routes, the north and south cirulars or any of the nation’s motorways will recognise the pollution that has a huge detrimental impact on their lives will be completely unaffected by the imposition of a single (if staged) LEZ.

In other words the general reduction of pollution resulting from an LEZ is trivial in comparison to the scale of the real problem (3% in LEZ areas, I hear you say!), and by tackling it piecemeal in this fashion not only fails to address the real issue, but may also hinder any prospect of tackling the wider problem.

Instead of taking unilateral action for limited groups of people, the politicians ought to engage in concerted multilateral decisions that work with neighbouring authorities outside the capital in order to force the hand of government. Despite holding the positions of power at multiple levels Labour has conspicuously failed to indulge in any sort of joined-up thinking.

The LEZ policy is more about image than substance – it is worthy, but is still a mere sop to the environmental lobby for the clear political aim of appealing to ‘green’ voters. This is policy tourism of the worst sort.

This is key. TfL’s own figures suggest that the LEZ by itself will improve air quality in Greater London by less than 3%. This is a figure from an internal Lib Dem doc, but I’ve emailed the author for the back-up reference. I have a feeling it will be somewhere in this doc – possibly the aggregate of the figures on p112. If I am reading this table correctly, the baselines of emissions for each year reflect expected emissions based on behaviour change and other policies, and the green lines below then indicate the added effect of the LEZ. They are vanishingly small.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/LEZ/LEZ_Environmental_Report_November_2006.pdf

Given the fiddly, expensive nature of the implementation for such a tiny gain why not therefore ditch it and just keep the things that DO make up most of that effect?

The Low Emission Zone started in January this year, was delivered on time and on budget, and has delivered exactly what it set out to do in its first phase – stopping the most polluting lorries over 12 tonnes, buses and coaches coming into London and damaging Londoners air quality.

If Ken Livingstone or Sian Berry are elected as Mayor on 1 May, the zone will almost immediately be expanded to cover all lorries over 3.5 tonnes.

In all this will mean over 55,000 of the most polluting vehicles on London’s roads no longer clog up our lungs with their emissions.

TfL’s estimate is that that the Low Emission Zone, along with other policies like the congestion charge, cleaner taxis, and moving to a hybrid bus fleet, will mean that by 2012 nearly one million Londoners will no longer live on streets with dangerous air pollution.

We obviously have a different definition of failure!

I think it is funny that however much consensus there is over what is required, there is so much bickering over how to go about achieving it.

I also think it is dangerous to politicise issues of practical relevance out of partisan motives – nobody ‘owns’ environmental issues, because it is something that we all share equally and all have a stake in looking after.

To base a political movement on the exclusivity of intellectual means to address these shared concerns (as the Greens do) strikes me as unreservedly retrograde – it is scandalous that they can get away with painting themselves either as progressive or that they are interested in creating alliances rather than self-promotion and biased subversion to their own ends.

Likewise, David George, just think for a moment. The LEZ was a great idea. We all said it was a great idea, although we Greens and Lib Dems agreed it didn’t go far enough. Then it was introduced last month and (I’m getting tired of repeating this simple fact) it HASN’T WORKED.

So (more repetition) we have two choices – either improve it till it does (and the Greens have just teamed up with the party who don’t want it improved) or scrap it and go about the problem a different way.

And, as I’ve said above:

The trouble with the whole *principle* of an LEZ is surely that it is, by its nature, a staggered system with exceptions and grades built into it. There are two problems with this:

1. From a liberal perspective, it’s very hard to argue why you’re targetting *exactly* these people and making them subject to *exactly* these laws. This is something the Greens don’t contend with, but it’s pretty fundamental to the liberal way of thinking. It’s not that one can’t do it – obviously, since our tax package is half based on green taxes as choice influencers. But it does mean that where there *is* an option, it should be explored. This being an important liberal objection, since the LEZ is patently ineffective, it seems more logical to scrap it and start again.

2. A related, but less ideological and more practical point: a system based around grading and exceptions is inevitably going to become encrusted with extra little rules over time that will open up loopholes and obscure the original purpose – like tax law. That, I believe, was the logic behind stepping back and reassessing what the LEZ was trying to do, and seeking an altogether different way to go about it.

Normally I’d never dream of taking the piss with this much cut and pasting, but you lot are taking the piss with the total feebleness of your arguments, and no-one has provided anywhere near a convincing response to anything I’ve said.

I stand by the criticisms of Ken Livingstone I made in the 2004 campaign. I was extremely disappointed by his delivery on the environment, in particular. In the past 4 years, however, there has been a dramatic improvement across a whole range of areas at City Hall – Green Homes Service, cycling and walking budgets trebled, Climate Change Action Plan, abandonment of pro-airport expansion policies – much of this as a result of the co-operation between the Greens and the Mayor over the GLA budget. There is much, much, more to do and there are still key areas where we disagree and many areas where we still think the Mayor needs to be bolder. But I am prepared to give credit where credit is due and have no doubt that Livingstone is much more preferable than Boris Johnson.

I did not advocate a second preference vote for Livingstone in 2004 and actually left my second vote blank. But things are different in 2008. Firstly, as I said, Livingstone’s performance on the green agenda has greatly improved. Secondly, Boris Johnson poses a much bigger threat to progressive politics in London than Steve Norris ever did, both because he stands much more chance of winning than Norris and because he is much more rightwing than Norris.

It will be a slightly odd feeling on May 1st, however, given that this will be the first time my “X” has gone anywhere near a Labour Party candidate (even as second preference!) since the 1984 Euro elections.

Darren Johnson – Green AM

I will correct Jenny Craig on one thing though: I am not contemplating voting for Boris Johnson. I’m not contemplating voting for Ken Livingstone either. I’m only contemplating voting for Brian Paddick – who I give my second preference to is frankly none of your business.

But he isn’t the best candidate!

Greenpeace: “Greenpeace strongly supports the proposal for a Low Emissions Zone in London. By addressing the severe environmental problems caused by road traffic, Transport for London is showing commendable international leadership. As well as improving air quality, a LEZ is likely to encourage the use of less polluting, more fuel efficient vehicles. Over time this will help reduce climate changing carbon dioxide emissions and build on the progress already made with the Congestion Charge, which has led to a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide from traffic in the zone.”

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tags/congestion-charge

Friends of the Earth: “We congratulate Ken Livingstone on this initiative. The LEZ is exactly the kind of initiative Londoners need to end decades of needless threat to their health from dirty vehicles. But to protect the health of all Londoners the whole of the capital must be brought within legal air quality limits.”

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/londons_low_emission_zone_01022008.html

The Campaign for Better Transport made exactly the kind of comment Brian Paddick could make if he simply thinks the Low Emission Zone doesn’t go far enough:

“London’s low emission zone (LEZ), which comes into force today, is sorely needed. London’s air quality is the worst in the UK, causing an estimated 1,000 premature deaths a year.. But while the LEZ is welcome, it isn’t enough. The Mayor admits that even after it’s fully implemented, hundreds of thousands of Londoners will live in areas where air pollution levels are dangerous to health.

Cars are responsible for much of London’s pollution and aren’t included in the LEZ rules. Londoners must be given better alternatives to driving, particularly in outer London where traffic levels are growing.”

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/traffic_reduction/blog

And now your Mayoral candidate wants to scrap it.

It’s things like that that stop you from being a credible party. It’s why you’re going to lose Liverpool and Islington – your two flagship councils.

Let’s be honest and grown-up now: once a war has started, the best outcome for ALL sides is for a swift and decisive outcome. In the case of Iraq, the only possible outcome that could be swift and decisive was the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime. There is nothing incompatible with opposing a war, and then once it has started to hope for one side to win swiftly with as few casualties as possible. Those who oppose this outcome are implicitly saying that they wanted the war to drag on for longer. That would have meant: more British troops to be killed (which George Galloway wanted); more Iraqi civilians to be killed by a continued air campaign; more destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. It is one thing to say that the Iraqis have the right to defend themselves against invasion (they did) but another to wish them success when that success can only result in a longer and more bloody outcome.

The outcome of Iraq war was not about winning a student politics debate. Rather, many thousands of lives depended on a swift and decisive outcome. Now, as it happens, the American’s (and Blair’s) lack on any reconstruction plan meant that in the aftermath of that swift victory, a grand defeat was snatched from its jaws, and the swiftness of the initial victory actually counted for little compared to the carnage that came after. But let’s be absolutely clear: no SANE person who was against the war really wanted that carnage and civil war to happen. That is the realm of armchair extremists who want to see death continue, safe from their own cosy democratic living-rooms in the UK.

When I see the Green Party pushing this line, it just goes to prove how they have been tainted with the worst aspects of Social Worker style campaigning. They will regret it in the long term.

Furthermore, it would be strange to blame the Liberal Democrat Party if Boris wins. This is one of the more bizarre ‘I’m cancelling my subscription’ type threats I’ve seen of late (although of course, there have been certain others).

Sure, we “believe in PR, we believe in coalitions” but I don’t see what this has to do with Ken (especially given his schmoozing with somewhat illiberal and undemocratic characters of the world).

I’m also unclear as to how a vote for Boris is “self indulgent”. Alas I was going to attempt a humourous reference to ‘indulging in Boris’ but as it’s lunchtime this would perhaps be cruel. Horrid thought, depart my mind…

I notice that a few months later, the Stop the War coalition started using the not dissimilar slogan ‘Support our troops – bring them home’. If you’ve organised trips to demos in the way that you claim you have almost certainly marched under that slogan. Meanwhile, five years later no-one – not Stop the War, not Galloway, not Livingstone and not even the Green Party – has called for the ICC to start prosecuting troops for their actions.

You don’t actually disagree with the Lib Dem line. So spare us your manufactured outrage.

Having organised public meetings and coaches to demonstrations since 2002 I have to say I don’t know anyone who is concerned by Livingstone’s activities on the fifth anniversary of the war. I think the fact that he opposed the war and continues to oppose the disastrous occupation is what people understand to be Livingstone’s position, he wrote a very good article on it for the fifth anniversary which I’m sure you’ve read.

Out of interest, what was Paddick’s position on the war once it had begun? Was it different to the LibDems official line to oppose the missiles going in, but supporting the ‘job being done’ once the first few had rained down?

Whatever it is, it must be closer to Livingstone’s clear opposition than Johnson’s gung-ho support for Bush on this…