3 ms·
From the BBC article, this seems like an extraordinarily undemocratic decision: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 https://www.bbc.co.uk/new
by mellosouls 4y ago
From the BBC article, this seems like an extraordinarily undemocratic decision:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724
"Some 60% of those who responded to the public consultation into the expansion plans were opposed to it, with 70% of residents in Outer London against the idea, and 80% of workers in Outer London opposed."
- walthamstow 4y agoKhan won his re-election by 10 points on a platform that included extending the ULEZ.
- mellosouls 4y ago"that included" The consultation was on the ULEZ expansion only. Without more context justifying the dismissal of the consultation, this is clearly an undemocratic move.
- walthamstow 4y agoWhat's so democratic about a consultation? They suffer from self selection bias and are easily gamed by orgs like the LTDA. Elections are how we decide how to run the city. Khan said he was going to extend it, he won handsomely, and now he's extending it. I don't know how you can call that "extraordinarily undemocratic" unless you have an agenda.
- mellosouls 4y agounless you have an agenda. Please assume good faith - I could obviously have made the same accusation to you. Given you've thrown the first stone though I think you should consider your own possible biases. For mine: I support extending the ULEZ but not when it is done in such an arrogant, undemocratic way. My bias is for reducing pollution but against the undermining of the voices of people involved in local decisions - especially when, as here, they are explicitly asked. My questioning of the decision therefore seems consistent with the context and free of "agenda"; your response rather less so.